# iTunes Store now DRM-free



## Guest (Jan 6, 2009)

Announced today at Macworld Expo. Today 8 million of the 10 million songs available oin the iTunes store are now DRM-free. By the end of March: no more DRM on any content in the iTunes store, video or audio. Previously purchased DRM-laden tracks will be eligible to upgrade to DRM-free versions for $0.30/track. And finally: three tier per-track pricing is coming ($0.69, $0.99, $1.29). Details are here. Article also mentions the iTunes Store has sold six _billion_ tracks since it opened. Wow.

Discuss.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

From what I hear they will finally be offering high bitrate files too. I love the IDEA of an music download service, but I refused to use one as long as they were only encoding at 128 kbps ACC or Mp3. That is nowhere near a CD quality rip in either format. If I am paying for music, I want it to be CD quality. 99 cents a song was not a deal in any way for the quality of files they were selling.

I will definitely be using iTunes music store more now.


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2009)

I've been sticking to only iTunes+ files which are 256kbps encoded AAC files. I'd love to see Apple Lossless tracks in the store. That'd be ideal.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

excuse my ignorance but what is DRM


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2009)

GuitarsCanada said:


> excuse my ignorance but what is DRM


Digital rights management. For iTunes it was FairPlay. Windows-centric stores have DRM-laden WMA files. It's encryption on the file that limits what can play it and what you can do with it. For example: previously a track bought from the iTunes Store could only be played on devices "authorized" with your account. And you could only authorize up to 5 devices. And one of them had to be your computer you were making the purchase from. So if you have your computer, your iPod, your wife's iPod and two kids -- well there are your 5 devices. Add a third kid and they were SOL -- you were at your authorized user limit for the file. Now even if you've got 15 iPods in the house they can all share the music bought through one iTunes Store account.

If you're only ever ripping CDs you never encounter DRM. It's only when you buy content online from iTunes and Rhapsody that you get in to this stuff. There are thriving bastions of DRM-free MP3s out there like AimeStreet.com and eMusic.com -- but iTunes is the biggest player and they sort of controlled it all, and they're dropping DRM which is pretty much the death knell for the whole idea of DRM.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

iaresee said:


> Digital rights management. For iTunes it was FairPlay. Windows-centric stores have DRM-laden WMA files. It's encryption on the file that limits what can play it and what you can do with it. For example: previously a track bought from the iTunes Store could only be played on devices "authorized" with your account. And you could only authorize up to 5 devices. And one of them had to be your computer you were making the purchase from. So if you have your computer, your iPod, your wife's iPod and two kids -- well there are your 5 devices. Add a third kid and they were SOL -- you were at your authorized user limit for the file. Now even if you've got 15 iPods in the house they can all share the music bought through one iTunes Store account.
> 
> If you're only ever ripping CDs you never encounter DRM. It's only when you buy content online from iTunes and Rhapsody that you get in to this stuff. There are thriving bastions of DRM-free MP3s out there like AimeStreet.com and eMusic.com -- but iTunes is the biggest player and they sort of controlled it all, and they're dropping DRM which is pretty much the death knell for the whole idea of DRM.


Appreciate the explanation on that. Sounds like it is good for all the users.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

DRM free lossless won't happen. They have pretty much given in to lossy copies being pirated around the internet. They won't want to make the lossless versions easily distributable as well. IMO

Actually lossless at all might be too much to ask for since a simple burn to disc and rerip using your favorite tool will circumvent the DRM anyway. Though at this point it's easier to just by the darn CD already.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Actually lossless at all might be too much to ask for since a simple burn to disc and rerip using your favorite tool will circumvent the DRM anyway. Though at this point it's easier to just by the darn CD already.


Ya but that is transcoding. Which creates bigger loss in quality. When you encode, burn, and re-encode again you are compressing the file twice. So it's not much of a solution. Which makes it even better news that they are getting rid of DRM.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> Ya but that is transcoding. Which creates bigger loss in quality. When you encode, burn, and re-encode again you are compressing the file twice. So it's not much of a solution. Which makes it even better news that they are getting rid of DRM.


I'm really not sure what you are talking about? Are you saying that burn to CD in iTunes it actually strips data from the lossless source file when it creates the wave files? What sample rate does it force on you?


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2009)

torndownunit said:


> Ya but that is transcoding. Which creates bigger loss in quality. When you encode, burn, and re-encode again you are compressing the file twice. So it's not much of a solution. Which makes it even better news that they are getting rid of DRM.


The problem you speak of is only an issue if you go from lossy format to lossy format. For example: you re-encode a lossy MP3 into Ogg-Vorbis. You'll hear weird artifacts because the two compression algorithms are dissimilar. One strips away one thing, the other another thing, and when you compound them like that with interpolation in between it turns into something awful.

With lossless compression you'd be getting back precisely the same bitstream you started with, not a reasonable facsimile, so re-encoding with another algorithm, lossy or otherwise, shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

When an CD track is converted to an lossy format, it's compressed and some data is removed to compress it. The same concept as JPG for photos. If you then burn that track back to a CD, that data is not 'recovered' from the original compression. That is why it's a 'lossy' codec. If you then take that CD you burned from your lossy file format and compress it once again to a lossy format, you are losing even more data. No, this isn't as big of a deal with a higher bitrate file. But with a 128 kbps AAC file it is. 

A 128 kpbs AAC file is not even close to CD quality. That file has been extremely compressed. 128 kbps AAC files were designed for use on portable players and to be listened to through headphones. That codec at that bitrate was never optimal for burning to an audio CD. ACC isn't even a good codec for higher bitrate encoding. It's main strength was for use on portable players. And iTunes market was iPod users.

It's not a solution to getting around DRM because you are losing file quality. That is why iTunes offering higher bitrate DRM free files is a good thing. It gives you way more freedom with your files.

As iaresee said, lossless downloads would be the optimal solution. Then you could do whatever you wanted with your files. And you'd be paying for the same quality file you would be getting on CD. If you are paying say $13 for 13 tracks of a album, that is not really a huge discount considering there's no packaging, no distribution, and no store to buy the album through. AND you are paying for a poor quality version of the album. The files should either cost less, or be a higher quality. That is the reason I have never used the online music services much. WHen they address these issues, I gladly will.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Again I'm missing something...

Recap:
I said IMO they won't offer non DRM lossless. Then I said they probably won't even offer a DRM lossless because it could be burned to CD and and then reripped to circumvent the DRM. The end result is original lossless quality without DRM.


How are we getting lossy compression? Is it iTunes forcing it when burning a lossless source to CD?


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> excuse my ignorance but what is DRM


Pointless, lol.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> excuse my ignorance but what is DRM


Wheewh! Thank you!


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Again I'm missing something...
> 
> Recap:
> I said IMO they won't offer non DRM lossless. Then I said they probably won't even offer a DRM lossless because it could be burned to CD and and then reripped to circumvent the DRM. The end result is original lossless quality without DRM.
> ...


Up until recently Apple only offered 128 kpbs AAC files. Which is a very lossy format. Now they are offering 256 kpbs which is a lot better, and it's DRM free. While that's better, you still aren't getting the quality of track you would get buying a CD in the store. Burning 128 kbps AAC to CD, you are getting nowhere near a CD quality burn. It's a little closer with 256 kbps. You take either one, burn it, then re-rip it and the quality will suffer,

The goal of these services is to make you pay for music again. The only reason they all started at 128 kbps Mp3/AAC with DRM was because that was the only way the record companies would allow the services to use the music. Now that some of them are actually working well, the quality and DRM restrictions are getting lifted. 

The reason iTunes offers 256 kbps files now is that people demanded it. People who don't care about sound quality were fine with the low bitrate files. People who wanted to get what they were paying for wanted better quality files. I think that same need will lead to lossless formats being available on those services soon. These are an online music store. I don't think the goal was ever to sell inferior quality copies of the music. They just had to start somewhere. I think in the end we will have tracks that are the same quality as a CD, and we will have the same freedoms/restrictions that we do with the cd's.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> Up until recently Apple only offered 128 kpbs AAC files. Which is a very lossy format. Now they are offering 256 kpbs which is a lot better, and it's DRM free. While that's better, you still aren't getting the quality of track you would get buying a CD in the store. Burning 128 kbps AAC to CD, you are getting nowhere near a CD quality burn. It's a little closer with 256 kbps. You take either one, burn it, then re-rip it and the quality will suffer,
> 
> The goal of these services is to make you pay for music again. The only reason they all started at 128 kbps Mp3/AAC with DRM was because that was the only way the record companies would allow the services to use the music. Now that some of them are actually working well, the quality and DRM restrictions are getting lifted.
> 
> The reason iTunes offers 256 kbps files now is that people demanded it. People who don't care about sound quality were fine with the low bitrate files. People who wanted to get what they were paying for wanted better quality files. I think that same need will lead to lossless formats being available on those services soon. These are an online music store. I don't think the goal was ever to sell inferior quality copies of the music. They just had to start somewhere. I think in the end we will have tracks that are the same quality as a CD, and we will have the same freedoms/restrictions that we do with the cd's.


Why do you keep quoting my comments on the future prospect of lossless (DRM or not) and then start talking about the history of lossy compression and how it makes no sense to burn to disk because the end result will be worst? I'm terribly confused. Sorry!


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Why do you keep quoting my comments on the future prospect of lossless (DRM or not) and then start talking about the history of lossy compression and how it makes no sense to burn to disk because the end result will be worst? I'm terribly confused. Sorry!


I am not sure what you are asking?

You wanted know why burning a disc from an AAC file, then re-ripping it to bypass DRM was a bad idea, so I explained why. Is it that you are asking more information about?

The end result will be 'worse' if you keep ripping and encoding. Once the file is ripped to 128 kpbs AAC for iTunes, it's been compressed to hell. When it 'expands' when you burn an audio CD (for lack of a better term), you do not get any of that lost file information back from the compression. At THAT point your track will sound as 'good' as your 128 kbps ACC file. But if you take that CD and re-encode it AGAIN, it's compressing a file that was already compressed to heck once. The file will lose more quality/information each time. You mentioned this as a solution to bypassing DRM, and I (and one other user) was just pointing out that it's not really a solution because you end up with a lower quality file then what you paid for if you are forced to use that method to bypass DRM. It's just a point of discussion. I am not sure what you are getting at, or what (if anything) you want to know about it?

You then mentioned that you didn't think they would offer Lossless DRM files, and I explained why I think they will. And why they have started offering 256 kbps DRM free files already. It's a discussion, so I am discussing it.

All I was getting at is this is a good thing, even ignoring the DRM issues. 128 kbps AAC files are not great quality. Especially not for burning audio CD's. Getting 256 kbps files for the same price is a huge improvement. And the lack of DRM is a huge bonus on top of that. I am happy about it. I bought 2 albums off iTunes last night. I am NOT an expert on this stuff. I only research it because I like to know what I am paying for. I am not paying the same price I'd pay for a CD, for a version of it that's audio quality is not even close to the source. I have been waiting since iTunes Store was created for better quality files.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Ummmmm ....... I see that Sunrise is selling vinyl again (man you guys are making me feel old)

sdsre


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> I am not sure what you are asking?
> 
> You wanted know why burning a disc from an AAC file, then re-ripping it to bypass DRM was a bad idea, so I explained why. Is it that you are asking more information about?
> 
> ...


 
Actually no I never mention lossy once. You did. I said I don't think they'll offer DRM lossless either because the the DRM can easily be circumvented by burning a CD from the the files and reripping. The end result will be the exact same lossless quality as the source.

I'm starting to think you assumed I was talking about breaking the DRM on the existing lossy files they supply. Which would lead to all the confusion.

That said: You could do the same thing on the losssy files and get an end result that wasn't worst but unfortunately it would be a much larger file than you started with.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Actually no I never mention lossy once. You did. I said I don't think they'll offer DRM lossless either because the the DRM can easily be circumvented by burning a CD from the the files and reripping. The end result will be the exact same lossless quality as the source.
> 
> I'm starting to think you assumed I was talking about breaking the DRM on the existing lossy files they supply. Which would lead to all the confusion.
> 
> That said: You could do the same thing on the losssy files and get an end result that wasn't worst but unfortunately it would be a much larger file than you started with.


See, I tend to think they will offer them at SOME point. At least I hope.

It's an ONLINE music service but you are still buying music from them. I mean, their idea was to replace record stores. So the music SHOULD be the same quality as what you would buy in the store. For $1 a song you should be able to buy a full quality track, and have the same rights to that track as you do with a CD. There should be no DRM methods, and no quality issues.

When we get into the area of 256 kpbs AAC files that are DRM free, you have a source that is pretty good for pirating anyway. The quality is much closer to a CD than what they previously offered. I tend to think if they are offering files at this quality with no protection, that they will offer lossless files with no restrictions at some point down the road as well.

It's a tough job basically having to redesign the whole music business lol. At least they are selling a lot of music though, and the artists are getting something about of it.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> I tend to think if they are offering files at this quality with no protection, that they will offer lossless files with no restrictions at some point down the road as well.
> 
> It's a tough job basically having to redesign the whole music business lol. At least they are selling a lot of music though, and the artists are getting something about of it.


I think most iTunes stuff is constant bit rate so it's not actually that close to CD. Hiqh quality Lame encoded 320kbps vbr mp3 is getting pretty close.

The only thing CDs have going for them right now is the higher bit rate, studios would have to pretty much give up on CDs before they would allow iTunes to provide Lossless. Again my opinion only.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Actually there are a hand full of sites that already provide lossless. But the artist selection is all independent and indie, no artists with major label affiliation.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> I think most iTunes stuff is constant bit rate so it's not actually that close to CD. Hiqh quality Lame encoded 320kbps vbr mp3 is getting pretty close.
> 
> The only thing CDs have going for them right now is the higher bit rate, studios would have to pretty much give up on CDs before they would allow iTunes to provide Lossless. Again my opinion only.


The other thing that is good and bad is the loss of packaging. It's good from a cost, and environmental aspect. But it's a shame to see album artwork pushed even further to the side. CD's obviously weren't as good as records in that record, but people had been coming up with some creative designs.

I personally think USB Flash drives will be the nest big thing. They will even push HDDVD right out of the picture. I think you will walk into a store like Walmart (for an example) and there will be a little kiosk loaded with movies and music. You plug your USB drive into it,pay, and you are done.

My newest DVD player takes Flash keys and I love it. I don't have cable TV so I mainly use it download TV shows and watch. I can stock the whole season of True Blood on one Flash key, and I am rockin lol.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> The other thing that is good and bad is the loss of packaging. It's good from a cost, and environmental aspect. But it's a shame to see album artwork pushed even further to the side. CD's obviously weren't as good as records in that record, but people had been coming up with some creative designs.


You don't have to tell me about the packaging. I just archived my CD collection in binders. It was a nightmare finding a recycling option for 4500 CD jewel cases.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> You don't have to tell me about the packaging. I just archived my CD collection in binders. It was a nightmare finding a recycling option for 4500 CD jewel cases.


I did the same thing 2 years ago. I moved them into one of those metal cases. It's a dream space wise, but man o man the waste.

I can't even imagine doing it with 4500 albums.

I have 500 vinyl records in storage to deal with as well lol.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2009)

torndownunit said:


> My newest DVD player takes Flash keys and I love it. I don't have cable TV so I mainly use it download TV shows and watch. I can stock the whole season of True Blood on one Flash key, and I am rockin lol.


That sounds pretty cool. I'm getting frustrated watching stuff on the PC and burning DVDs doesn't always work -- I seem to hit an awful lot of files that have audio/video sync issues after I Toast them. What's your DVD player?


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

iaresee said:


> That sounds pretty cool. I'm getting frustrated watching stuff on the PC and burning DVDs doesn't always work -- I seem to hit an awful lot of files that have audio/video sync issues after I Toast them. What's your DVD player?


You should check out the Popcorn Hour boxes. Pretty inexpensive and they will pretty much play anything, streamed or off USB.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2009)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> You should check out the Popcorn Hour boxes. Pretty inexpensive and they will pretty much play anything, streamed or off USB.


Wow. That's a pretty cool little box. Does it work as well as they say? Anyone use one of these?


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Wow. That's a pretty cool little box. Does it work as well as they say? Anyone use one of these?


I have one. I don't use it anymore because the interface is 10 years ago, if you know what I mean. But it does play pretty much everything.

I now do flac multichannel in my mkv files and that's the one thing it won't do.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

iaresee said:


> That sounds pretty cool. I'm getting frustrated watching stuff on the PC and burning DVDs doesn't always work -- I seem to hit an awful lot of files that have audio/video sync issues after I Toast them. What's your DVD player?


The player I use is the Philips DVP5990. They cost like $59.

They also rip cd's to mp3 onto the Flash drive. Kinda neat.

The last Philips DVP I had lasted me 5 years lol. For $49.

At some point I am going to get one of the boxes Jeff is talking about. This is a good 'budget' solution though.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

Popcorn player sounds pretty cool. 

Since the DRM lift on iTunes I checked the "Upgrade to iTunes Plus" and holy S&%t! It will apparently cost me in excess of $280 to upgrade all the music I purchased. What I don't like is the fact that you can't choose which songs or albums you can upgrade. It's all or nothing. Pisses me off, since I bought a lot of music online while friends were downloading for free of limewire etc...I like the fact that they are offering better quality downloads without the DRM but I think a person should have a choice as to which albums they want to upgrade for more $$$$$$$$$$$


----------

