Upgrading to iTunes Plus

I've checked out iTunes+ and it informed me that I had three tracks for which DMR-free 256kbps tracks were available.

This has prompted me to wonder something: if they replace the tracks in my library, what would happen if those tracks were in any of my playlists?

Unfortunately, this occurred to me too late to conduct a test.

--

=Alex Hoffman Leadership Policy & Politics Teachers College, Columbia University

--On 5/31/2007 8:15 AM -0700 Alexander Hoffman wrote:

> This has prompted me to wonder something: if they replace the tracks in
> my library, what would happen if those tracks were in any of my playlists?
>
> Unfortunately, this occurred to me too late to conduct a test.

I didn't check this. I did, however, verify that when I had modified other
attributes (like Year) the new track inherited the old modified attributes,
as well as inheriting the play count, star rating, and most-recently-played
timestamp.

Dave

At 8:15 AM -0700 5/31/07, Alexander Hoffman wrote:

>I've checked out iTunes+ and it informed me that I had three tracks
>for which DMR-free 256kbps tracks were available.
>
>This has prompted me to wonder something: if they replace the tracks
>in my library, what would happen if those tracks were in any of my
>playlists?

They remain in your playlists, the entries now pointing to the new,
DRM-free version. At least, that is what happened to me, when I
selected to put the original version into a folder on the desktop.
--
Roger
Lovettsville, VA

On 1-Jun-2007, at 12:04, Roger D. Parish wrote:
> At 8:15 AM -0700 5/31/07, Alexander Hoffman wrote:
>> I've checked out iTunes+ and it informed me that I had three tracks
>> for which DMR-free 256kbps tracks were available.
>>
>> This has prompted me to wonder something: if they replace the tracks
>> in my library, what would happen if those tracks were in any of my
>> playlists?
>
> They remain in your playlists, the entries now pointing to the new,
> DRM-free version. At least, that is what happened to me, when I
> selected to put the original version into a folder on the desktop.

One thing to note about the new DRM-Free tracks is that they STILL
have your itunes account username, at least, embedded in them, so
don't go sharing them with your cousin.

(you can see this easily in the terminal, just type 'strings ' and
then drag the drm-free file to the terminal window type } grep
mac.com and press return)

you should get a line that looks like this:

$ strings "~/Music/iTunes Library/10,000 Maniacs/Love Among the Ruins/
07 More Than This.m4p" | grep mac.com
[user]mac.com

where [user] is you.

On 6/4/07 07:23, "Google Kreme" <gkremegmail.com> wrote:
> One thing to note about the new DRM-Free tracks is that they STILL
> have your itunes account username, at least, embedded in them, so
> don't go sharing them with your cousin.

I'm seeing the brouhaha about this and it's really surprising. (The
brouhaha, not the fact that user data is embedded in the file.) While not
having DRM on the tracks is a good first step, and an important one, did
anyone think EMI would have let it happen without SOME way to track the
source if they start showing up on the P2P networks?

I mean, seriously?

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On Jun 4, 2007, at 10:22 AM, John C. Welch wrote:

> On 6/4/07 07:23, "Google Kreme" <gkremegmail.com> wrote:
>> One thing to note about the new DRM-Free tracks is that they STILL
>> have your itunes account username, at least, embedded in them, so
>> don't go sharing them with your cousin.
>
> I'm seeing the brouhaha about this and it's really surprising. (The
> brouhaha, not the fact that user data is embedded in the file.)
> While not
> having DRM on the tracks is a good first step, and an important
> one, did
> anyone think EMI would have let it happen without SOME way to track
> the
> source if they start showing up on the P2P networks?
>
> I mean, seriously?

I agree, but at the same time Apple made a decision which caused the
excitement, the decision being to use name and AppleID (often an
email address) rather than some token which Apple could resolve to
the customer but which others couldn't.

One would also like to see a token--perhaps transaction ID related to
further nail down the sharing person.

With the system being used, someone wanting to get someone else in
trouble can try forging the information and sharing the track. (A
defense might be Apple's records showing that the victim never bought
that song.)

That doesn't help the case of the stolen iPod's tracks being put into
filesharing--do save that police report you filed.

   --John

On 6/4/07 19:31, "johnbaxterlistsmac.com" <johnbaxterlistsmac.com> wrote:
> I agree, but at the same time Apple made a decision which caused the
> excitement, the decision being to use name and AppleID (often an
> email address) rather than some token which Apple could resolve to
> the customer but which others couldn't.
>
> One would also like to see a token--perhaps transaction ID related to
> further nail down the sharing person.

Yes, but an unreadable token doesn't have the same human effect. Telling
someone "Oh, there's some uber-encrypted key that only apple can read"?
Please, no one will care, and in the end, it's not that different. But show
someone *their* name and *their* email address? That's something even the
most tech-ignorant person gets: "If I put this on LimeWire, they can track
my arse down".

Don't knock old - fashioned scare tactics, they often work quite well.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

At 6:09 AM -0700 6/5/07, John C. Welch wrote:
>On 6/4/07 19:31, "johnbaxterlistsmac.com" <johnbaxterlistsmac.com> wrote:
> > One would also like to see a token--perhaps transaction ID related to
>> further nail down the sharing person.
>
>Yes, but an unreadable token doesn't have the same human effect. Telling
>someone "Oh, there's some uber-encrypted key that only apple can read"?
>Please, no one will care, and in the end, it's not that different. But show
>someone *their* name and *their* email address? That's something even the
>most tech-ignorant person gets: "If I put this on LimeWire, they can track
>my arse down".

How do we know that they are not doing both?

--

=Alex Hoffman
Leadership Policy & Politics
Teachers College, Columbia University

On 4-Jun-2007, at 11:22, John C. Welch wrote:
> On 6/4/07 07:23, "Google Kreme" <gkremegmail.com> wrote:
>> One thing to note about the new DRM-Free tracks is that they STILL
>> have your itunes account username, at least, embedded in them, so
>> don't go sharing them with your cousin.
>
> I'm seeing the brouhaha about this and it's really surprising.

It's not surprising to ME...

> (The brouhaha, not the fact that user data is embedded in the file.) While not
> having DRM on the tracks is a good first step, and an important one, did
> anyone think EMI would have let it happen without SOME way to track the
> source if they start showing up on the P2P networks?

I dunno... people are idiots. Personally, I am GLAD the 'watermark'
is there.

Just as interesting as the wonderful music is the "Apple Announces
iTunes U on the iTunes Store Free Content From Top Universities Now
Available" announcement. I wonder why that went unnoticed by this
intellectual list?

<www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/05/30itunesu.html>

George