Filed in archive
Apple
, Commentary
, Consumer Rights
, Privacy & Security
by Marc on July 5, 2007
It was announced with a big bang and the promise of free and open music. See Open Format Files Rate a 30% Premium.
It went downhill from there. First, you're asked to pay a premium for 256 kbps files that sound only marginally better than typical 128 kbps files.
Then we learned that the non-DRM files were proprietary - Open iTunes Files are not MP3.
Now it turns out that the files are encoded with your name and email address (as are regular secured iTunes files).
This is worse than DRM. At least you knew you were fucked with secured files that you couldn't take with you, use on other devices, and didn't really own.
But Apple and EMI try to fool you with iTunes Plus. Instead of protecting their music by securing it in the open, they do it by threatening your privacy in the dark.
Tagging files with your personal info that are relatively portable is like burning your name and phone number on a CD for every buyer, store, and visitor to see. It's even worse in the digital world because Apple and EMI, and anyone else who cracks the code, can track you all over the Internet and P2P networks.
"Plus" is a big warning not to sell, send, or share that file with a friend. The file could end up anywhere. By buying it you not only risk your privacy, you may also open yourself to a lawsuit, regardless of your intent and the facts of any transfer.
That's Apple Plus's trust and respect for you. And the music industry wonders why an entire generation of music fans HATES them?
Related links - EFF1, EFF2, EFF3, EFF4, MTV
Permalink: The iTunes Plus Scam
Trackback: http://publish.creative-weblogging.com/publish/mt-tb.pl/79397
Addthis
Ask
Blinklist
del.icio.us
Digg
Fark
Facebook
Google
Lycos
Ma.gnolia
Mr Wong
Netscape
Netvousz
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Slashdot
Tailrank
Technorati
Wink
Yahoo
Vote for The iTunes Plus Scam:
|
Rating: 6.00 out of 2 vote(s) cast.
|
Response from:
Hugo
(07/11/07 6:50am)
Response from:
Hugo
(07/11/07 6:51am)
Calling AAC a non-open (read, close) format just because it is not MP3 is completely absurd. As it is, AAC is an open, standard format. WMA isn't, for instance.
What is proprietary is the DRM system "FairPlay" but, as you know, these songs from EMI don't have DRM, so there is on proprietary piece.
Anyway, I agree on the "stab in the back" from these bastards. You see, EMI just joined the DRM-free wave because they are not making business and this is a way to be on the press and to appear to us as a "cool" company that doesn't do evil. But the only reason they are DRM-free is because there is a market opportunity, not because of the conviction that DRM sucks. Otherwise, they wouldn't be doing stupid things like adding your name to songs, or charging extra money (with the silly excuse of the quality).
What is proprietary is the DRM system "FairPlay" but, as you know, these songs from EMI don't have DRM, so there is on proprietary piece.
Anyway, I agree on the "stab in the back" from these bastards. You see, EMI just joined the DRM-free wave because they are not making business and this is a way to be on the press and to appear to us as a "cool" company that doesn't do evil. But the only reason they are DRM-free is because there is a market opportunity, not because of the conviction that DRM sucks. Otherwise, they wouldn't be doing stupid things like adding your name to songs, or charging extra money (with the silly excuse of the quality).
Response from:
Hugo
(07/11/07 6:53am)
Calling AAC a non-open (read, close) format just because it is not MP3 is completely absurd.Indeed, AAC is an open, standard format. WMA isn't, for instance.
What is proprietary is the DRM system "FairPlay" but, as you know, these songs from EMI don't have DRM, so there is on proprietary piece.
Anyway, I agree on the "stab in the back" from these bastards. You see, EMI just joined the DRM-free wave because they are not making business and this is a way to be on the press and to appear to us as a "cool" company that doesn't do evil. But the only reason they are DRM-free is because there is a market opportunity, not because of the conviction that DRM sucks. Otherwise, they wouldn't be doing stupid things like adding your name to songs, or charging extra money (with the excuse of quality)
What is proprietary is the DRM system "FairPlay" but, as you know, these songs from EMI don't have DRM, so there is on proprietary piece.
Anyway, I agree on the "stab in the back" from these bastards. You see, EMI just joined the DRM-free wave because they are not making business and this is a way to be on the press and to appear to us as a "cool" company that doesn't do evil. But the only reason they are DRM-free is because there is a market opportunity, not because of the conviction that DRM sucks. Otherwise, they wouldn't be doing stupid things like adding your name to songs, or charging extra money (with the excuse of quality)
Response from:
Hugo
(07/11/07 6:53am)
(why is it so difficult to post here?!) I think I'm getting an error but there is no message displayed. Damn AJAX sh*t...
Subscribe
Use the search to look for other interesting posts
| RSS |  See all blog subscribe options |
 What is RSS? | |
| Yahoo! |
|
| Addthis |
|
| Bloglines |
|
| Newsletter | |
| Follow us on Twitter! |
What is proprietary is the DRM system "FairPlay" but, as you know, these songs from EMI don't have DRM, so there is on proprietary piece.
Anyway, I agree on the "stab in the back" from these bastards. You see, EMI just joined the DRM-free wave because they are not making business and this is a way to be on the press and to appear to us as a "cool" company that doesn't do evil. But the only reason they are DRM-free is because there is a market opportunity, not because of the conviction that DRM sucks. Otherwise, they wouldn't be doing stupid things like adding your name to songs, or charging extra money (with the silly excuse of the quality).
If the reason for the extra price was really the quality, then you would be able to get DRM'ed songs at better quality for a higher price.