[Zoom]

What sort of DRM (Digital Rights Management) is built into AAC? This is what scares me. From this new Forbes articles, I saw this quote...

"Apple has also come up with a copy-protection scheme that satisfies the music industry but won't alienate paying customers. You can burn individual songs onto an unlimited number of CDs. You can download them onto as many iPods as you might own. In other words, the music is pretty much yours to do with as you please. Casual music pirates, however, won't like it. The iTunes jukebox software will allow a specific playlist of songs or an album to be burned onto a CD ten times. You can burn more than that only if you manually change the order of the songs in the playlist.

And anybody who tries to upload iTunes Music Store songs onto KaZaA will be shocked. Each song is encrypted with a digital key so that it can be played only on three authorized computers, and that prevents songs from being transferred online. Even if you burn the AAC songs onto a CD that a conventional CD player can read and then re-rip them back into standard MP3 files, the sound quality is awful. "

I think I can live with this scheme, but until I really understand how it works, I'm leery.

Can they change the usage model after the fact? Could new versions of iTunes be required to run my files and impose stricter limits on what my "fair use" is? What's enforcing this "3 computer limit"? Are there known ways to defeat this? Is iTunes phoning home?

Does Apple have list of all songs that you've purchased? If I somehow "lose" my original (say, my hard drive crashes), can I simply request a new copy?

How is it possible that converting AAC to AIFF and then back to MP3 ruins the sound quality? Is this some sort of audio Macrovision?? Is QuickTime inserting errors or something into the AIFF version?

Technically, AAC seems very cool and I'm all for adopting an open standard that's better than MP3, especially if it makes for smaller files and adds some nice new things like album cover art. (I'd really love it if it would include lyrics!) But I'm worried that this is some sort of Trojan horse.

[mrmister]

"How is it possible that converting AAC to AIFF and then back to MP3 ruins the sound quality?"

That would sound bad anyway--you're using two lossy compression schemes. From what I understand so far, there is no "additional" mucking with the files.

As for the rest of your questions, I'll let others here take a whack at them.

[CollinG3G4]

"AEach song is encrypted with a digital key so that it can be played only on three authorized computers, "


What...2 maybe 3 weeks till its cracked?

[Johnny_B]

I hate it. I am begining to think Apple is going to start to think more like M$. I am sure that it will lead to more users, but that doesn't include me. I hope I am wrong, I really like Mac, and has for over 10 years. I will wait and see what Apple do next before I replace my G4 QS 867 (single), hopefully I will buy a Mac next time as well.

[mrmister]

"I am begining to think Apple is going to start to think more like M$. "

if you think that, you live in a fantasy world, and you're going to have to use only completely GPLed Linux in the future.

[Sarc]

Originally posted by CollinG3G4:
"AEach song is encrypted with a digital key so that it can be played only on three authorized computers, "

uhhh WTF ?! does this apply to Music Store only or to the ones you rip as well ?!?!?

[spaced]

Man... you people need to chill out.

Yes, Apple keeps a list of your purchased music. There is a menu option in iTunes 4 you can use to sync your purchased music with the list on the server, i.e. it will download any files you are missing on your local copy automatically.

I have no problem with DRM because I am interested in being fair and legal. I do not own art, the person who created it or the label that bought it owns it, if I don't want to pay them to use it then I don't have to.

Yes, iTunes "phones home" in the sense that you have to login and register your copy of iTunes with your Apple ID. It checks your Apple ID against the purchased AAC files and plays them if there is a match. I am sure there will be a way around this, but like any encryption scheme, it's only meant to stop the most casual (and apparently the majority) of files swappers.

I suppose it's possible for them to impose a limit tighter than 3 computers. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the Agreement that came with the file when you purchased it are applicable as long as you own the file.

Apple is FAR from Microsoft. Apple's OS doesn't phone home and require a serial number for installation. They are only imposing this DRM because that's what the copyright holders want, and unfortunately until the laws change it's their call. If you don't want DRM music, keep downloading from Kazaa. Just because Apple introduced this service doesn't mean you have to use it. It's just another option for people who want quality recordings and aren't cheap bastards.

No, there is no "Macrovision" type errors being introduced to these files. Like the above post, AAC and MP3 are lossy compression formats and converting twice will make it sound like ass.

Basically, if you think it's a Trojan Horse, don't use it. End of story. Period. You got along without it yesterday and you'll get along without it tomorrow.

[spaced]

Originally posted by Sarc:
uhhh WTF ?! does this apply to Music Store only or to the ones you rip as well ?!?!?

Only to the music you download from the Music Store. Damnit do you people READ or COMPREHEND anything?!

[macintologist]

Actually I want to know.

Can anyone confirm that tracks I rip from CD don't have any special keys or anything? Can I share them with my friends on KDX?

[Sarc]

Originally posted by spaced:
Only to the music you download from the Music Store. Damnit do you people READ or COMPREHEND anything?!

you do see that you posted after me right ?
and if I ask here it is quite likely that I don't have any information on the subject ...

[Agent69]

Is there a way to back up your .aac files?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Actually I want to know.

Can anyone confirm that tracks I rip from CD don't have any special keys or anything? Can I share them with my friends on KDX?

Sure, if you want to be a music pirate.

The Apple Music Store has nothing to do with files you rip from original CD's.

[michaelr]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Actually I want to know.

Can anyone confirm that tracks I rip from CD don't have any special keys or anything? Can I share them with my friends on KDX?

You still have the option to rip to good old MP3.

[macintologist]

Originally posted by Sarc:
you do see that you posted after me right ?
and if I ask here it is quite likely that I don't have any information on the subject ...

pardon me but I was more interested in an official statement from apple's site saying that DRM is only for the store.

[spaced]

Originally posted by Sarc:
you do see that you posted after me right ?
and if I ask here it is quite likely that I don't have any information on the subject ...

it's all on Apple's website in black and white!

[spaced]

You people are IGNORANT.

Tracks you rip from your own CDs will not have any DRM. Nada, zip, zilch. MP3 or AAC. It doesn't matter. Unless you are downloading from the Music Store, NO DRM.

[Sarc]

could you please provide a link since I already browsed apple's site and couldn't find it ?

[Zoom]

So, let me clarify a bit...

"Trojan horse" has a lot of negative connotations. I probably should have picked a different metaphor. What I was thinking was that Apple and the Big Five will use this to get us all hooked on AAC, then impose some sort of retroactive restrictions. I'm sure they'd be within their rights to do so, and though I haven't read the EULA on iTunes4, I'll bet there's some loopholes in there that don't benefit us.

The whole Napster debate has long been one of my pet causes, and I think the whole DRM debate in general is very, very important. The music and video industry is about to be transformed completely, and I don't think that's a dramatic overstatement. Jobs was dead right on recognizing this. But I'm very concerned about where this all ends up. I think this new music service could very well end up evolving into the model for the future and I think we'd all do well to provide as much intelligent feedback as we can to Apple. Apple (ie, Jobs) seems to be one of the few companies that really gets it, but that doesn't mean they are smart enough to figure out the best solution out of the gate or that they won't eventually cave in to RIAA pressure if things don't go exactly as they want.

Anyway, to get back on topic, I want to fully understand AAC and the DRM technology involved so I can form an intelligent opinion on it, and then provide feedback to Apple.

So, please don't just say "hey, they own the stuff, so you can either play their game or go home". We, the consumers, have a chance to steer our future. Apple can become a powerful player here and if we can influence Apple, we can indirectly influence the future of DRM and "fair use" policies.

Let's get back to the technical discussion. Can anyone point to a web site with user-oriented technical break down on AAC? Here's a very technical description from SourceForge, but I saw nothing about DRM there.

BTW, if you'd like to read an interesting article on DRM and the Napster phenomenon from the perspective of an intelligent musician, check this article and it's follow-up from Janis Ian.

[Superchicken]

gahh I swear some people in this topic had mommies who were alcholics durring their pregnancies!

How can some people not get the basics. AAC stands for Advanced Audio Codec, it's another type of file. Apple's not gona suddenly let the record labels impose new things on your collection they'd sooner probably just not update the software, and even if they did wanna screw you over, you can still use the old tactic of burning to CD, to back things up, heck you could even take your audio out plug it into another computer and record that way and get your own MP3 of it if you really really want to.

There's no way that you'll be locked into using only AAC, apple has made it clear they want you to own your copy.

Lastly DRM isn't a technology it's a buzz word, like GUI and icon, every company has their own take on it, it's digital rights mannagement. Basically apple knows that strict DRM that takes away your fair use will piss people off, so they're not gona do stuff that will piss you off with it. You can share it with friends over a network you can put it on your other macs, burn it to CD, put it on an iPod. Basically anything that anyone wants to do now that is legal they let you do. If you want to NOT do the legal thing then you're probably not gona be downloading from apple.

[Graymalkin]

So to recap for the reading comprehension challenged:

• Apple had to go with AAC files for their downloadable music service because it is the only way the copyright holders would let them sell music online. AAC has default support for copyright protection which MP3 does not. If you make a copyright protected AAC file you can tell the file when its created how many people can listen to it before it stops working.
  
• By default iTunes/Quicktime does not copyright protect AAC files you rip yourself off of a CD. You can pirate those files as much as you want. If you're leary of using AAC encoding MP3 is still available, inside and outside of iTunes.
  
• The protections on the protected AAC files is not as restrictive as it could have been. You can put an AAC on as many CDs you want as CD audio. You can also share the files with your friends or local network with Rendevous. There's also nothing stopping you from loading them onto your iPod for an indefinite number of listenings.
  
• For those of you who've never tried it there's a nice experiment for you to try. Encode a song into an MP3 file from an AIFF. Take that MP3 and recode it back into an AIFF, then record it into an MP3. You will notice a HUGE loss in quality of the audio if not extra noice added to it. This will be especially true if the first encoding was at 128kbps and the second was a higher bitrate like 192kbps. The purpose of this experiment is to show you there's no Macrovision protection on AACs preventing you from copying them. The quality reduction is an artifact of the encoding process, you are throwing out data to make the music file smaller afterall. You're taking a waveform that has been through a psychoacoustic quantization (throwing out data your ears won't pick up and then normalizing the waveform) and then running it through a second reound of quantization. Imagine encoding a picture as a JPEG then saving it to a bitmap and recoding that bitmap as a JPEG again. The results are really not pretty.

Please if you choose to complain do it about things that are real problems.

[Putta]

OK, but as far as I can see, no one has answered this. Is there a drop in quality if I burn 128 AAC files to a CD and then rip them back as AAC as opposed to MP3 (as iTunes allows).

Surely the conversion process is then simply reversed (If it is indeed based on stripping out things your ears can't hear)?

If that is the case, surely you can burn, rip, mix?

Lastly - from someone technical. What are the chances of a hack coming out to remove the Apple form of DRM from AAC files. Is it even technically possible?

[Axel]

Originally posted by Putta:
OK, but as far as I can see, no one has answered this. Is there a drop in quality if I burn 128 AAC files to a CD and then rip them back as AAC as opposed to MP3 (as iTunes allows).

Yes there is. AAC si a lossy compression scheme, so converting anything to AAC will result in a drop of quality, no matter what the original is (AIFF, MP3, AAC...)

[pliny]

Originally posted by spaced:
Man... you people need to chill out.

Yes, Apple keeps a list of your purchased music. There is a menu option in iTunes 4 you can use to sync your purchased music with the list on the server, i.e. it will download any files you are missing on your local copy automatically.

This makes it sound like once you've bought the song or album from the Store, it's yours forever, and Apple will replace a copy free if you lose it. According to Apple,

"Be sure to make regular backups of your music files (in your iTunes Music folder) by copying them to an external hard disk or other media. If your hard disk becomes damaged or you lose any of the music you've purchased, you'll have to reimport all your songs and buy any purchased music again to rebuild your library."

Apple kb

Maybe they need to work on this?

I suppose it's possible for them to impose a limit tighter than 3 computers. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the Agreement that came with the file when you purchased it are applicable as long as you own the file.

Heh, the original poster raises good questions and your response about the Agreement, underscores the very point. It seems that upon purchase you are granted a *license* to the music, the way you are granted a license to software, so that true ownership remains with the source authorizing the license, in this case, the record company. A slight but significant difference than buying a cd, since the restrictions inherent in the license are what gives them the right to restrict the use beyond the inhering copyright.

I haven't bought from the Store so haven't seen a license, does anybody who's bought care to post the accompanying license?

[pliny]

Originally posted by Axel:
Yes there is. AAC si a lossy compression scheme, so converting anything to AAC will result in a drop of quality, no matter what the original is (AIFF, MP3, AAC...)

Yes but his quesiton is, burning a file *already* AAC to cd, then ripping it back *as* AAC. In this case, no, no data loss, because the format remains the same throughout. The question tho is, where besides your Mac or iPod can you play the AAC file as of today?

[Putta]

Originally posted by pliny:
Yes but his quesiton is, burning a file *already* AAC to cd, then ripping it back *as* AAC. In this case, no, no data loss, because the format remains the same throughout. The question tho is, where besides your Mac or iPod can you play the AAC file as of today?

Thats not the point - this way, one could presumably take tracks from the apple store and burn them to CD. Give them to your friend and he rips them in AAC to his computer and itunes library.

So, of course, the next question is whether doing this would remove the DRM portion of the AAC? Any ideas?

[pliny]

Originally posted by Putta:
Thats not the point - this way, one could presumably take tracks from the apple store and burn them to CD. Give them to your friend and he rips them in AAC to his computer and itunes library.

So, of course, the next question is whether doing this would remove the DRM portion of the AAC? Any ideas?

Hmm, good question, the drm would have to be encoded onto the cd itself (as part of the file) for the drm to work forever, since individual files or altered playlists can be burned indefinitely this suggests a "filtering out" as it were of the drm, so what you describe seems to be possible. It seems the Store drm is designed to allow purchase but prevent unauthorized file sharing via networks, but not sharing through burned cds.

[Zoom]

Apple has some KB articles out not, and this one talks about the "authorized computer" stuff. The line that scares me is this last one...

The Music Store is governed by its Terms of Service, which permits changing by Apple of the authorization policy.

I can't find a copy of the "Terms of Service" on the Apple web site. Can anyone post it?

[Putta]

Originally posted by pliny:
Hmm, good question, the drm would have to be encoded onto the cd itself (as part of the file) for the drm to work forever, since individual files or altered playlists can be burned indefinitely this suggests a "filtering out" as it were of the drm, so what you describe seems to be possible. It seems the Store drm is designed to allow purchase but prevent unauthorized file sharing via networks, but not sharing through burned cds.

I am sure we will find out soon enough - I would test it now if I was in the US (@&$*!!!!).

So, everyone - in a sense of solidarity - start doing this and posting the filtered AAC tracks on limewire (with the prefix "AMS" - Apple music Store) so that they are easy to find.

Anyone who writes back about music piracy and ethics - bite me!

[n~s]

Originally posted by Putta:
Thats not the point - this way, one could presumably take tracks from the apple store and burn them to CD. Give them to your friend and he rips them in AAC to his computer and itunes library.

So, of course, the next question is whether doing this would remove the DRM portion of the AAC? Any ideas?

It should, I don't have a burner, but I just tested with Audio Hijack...

1. Run AH, launch iTunes.

2. Started playing an Apple Online Store track that I bought and recording as an uncompressed .aiff file

(At this point, the file is just audio..should be the same if burned as audio on a CD)

3. Open .aiff file in iTunes, select it and convert to aac (or mp3 for that matter)

4. Resulting file doesn't appear to have any of the "smart" features of original, ie no tags, cover art, etc.

Anyone want to test from a CD? I know I'm not the only one curious about this.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Putta:
I am sure we will find out soon enough - I would test it now if I was in the US (@&$*!!!!).

So, everyone - in a sense of solidarity - start doing this and posting the filtered AAC tracks on limewire (with the prefix "AMS" - Apple music Store) so that they are easy to find.

Anyone who writes back about music piracy and ethics - bite me!

Consider yourself bitten

What does have a sense of solidarity to do with being a common thief?

[entrox]

I'm not sure if AAC -> CD -> AAC would incur any loss of quality. Just think about it: lossy encoding works by removing data, which the human brain can't interpret or filter out from the rest. If you burn this stripped audio stream on CD, you lose nothing as the data gets transferred 1:1. You now have the choice of re-encoding that into either MP3 or AAC - if you encode into MP3, it will filter out even more data, since it works differently from the original encoder. But, and this is the point I'm not exactly sure about, if you encode it with AAC *again*, you should get no loss, because the data this second encoding process would filter out was already filtered out by the first encoding run. Since I'm not familiar with the algorithm AAC uses, one should try this out - I can't do it, as I can't even hear the difference between an 128k MP3 and CD. I probably blew my ears out when I was still young and stupid ;-)

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Zoom:

I can't find a copy of the "Terms of Service" on the Apple web site. Can anyone post it?

You get to see (and agree to) the "terms of service" when you configure your Apple ID account for iTunes, before you put in your CC info. I'm sure it's available somewhere on Apple's web site as well.

As for this whole DRM debate, I've only started reading about AAC since yesterday, but I don't think it's a format that we should be worried about. It seems to be a legitimate follow-on to MP3, and part of the new MPEG standard. Linux tools exist for it, although I still haven't tried them out yet. (edit: AAC is covered by a ton of patents, but then again, so is MP3. You thought MP3 was a free format? just try selling a player without paying royalties...)

Unless Apple uses end-to-end encryption of the AAC from the Music Store all the way to the iPod, I don't think that they can do anything too drastic to the AAC file that would make it unusable. If you can extract it from the iTunes library (or from an iPod directly), you might very well be able to, say, play the AAC on a Linux computer without iTunes.

My uninformed opinon is that all the nasty DRM is bundled into iTunes itself. Let's face it, iTunes does give you more options than perhaps any other online music service, but if you find even that too restrictive, you can try and spring the AAC file out of iTunes and have more freedom.

I wouldn't be suprised, though, if the files you download from the Music Store are watermarked with some information that identifies you. So when you decide that Fair Use gives you the right to share these files with six million of your closest friends, the RIAA police can determine exactly who's at fault. I have no problem with this, and personally, I think they should use your CC number and expiration date as the watermark. You wouldn't put that up on Kazaa, would you?

I'm going to be doing some experimenting this week. My wife wants to use her own Apple ID and credit card, but you can bet that we'll want to share our purchases with each other and put songs from both accounts on our iPod. That's well within my Fair Use rights, and if Apple lets me do this, then we'll probably start buying more music...

[Eug]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
So to recap for the reading comprehension challenged:

For those of you who've never tried it there's a nice experiment for you to try. Encode a song into an MP3 file from an AIFF. Take that MP3 and recode it back into an AIFF, then record it into an MP3. You will notice a HUGE loss in quality of the audio if not extra noice added to it. This will be especially true if the first encoding was at 128kbps and the second was a higher bitrate like 192kbps. The purpose of this experiment is to show you there's no Macrovision protection on AACs preventing you from copying them. The quality reduction is an artifact of the encoding process, you are throwing out data to make the music file smaller afterall. You're taking a waveform that has been through a psychoacoustic quantization (throwing out data your ears won't pick up and then normalizing the waveform) and then running it through a second reound of quantization. Imagine encoding a picture as a JPEG then saving it to a bitmap and recoding that bitmap as a JPEG again. The results are really not pretty.

If you encode to 256 kbps MP3 and then burn to CD (uncompressed) and then re-encode to 256 kbps MP3, the results are actually quite good.

Similarly, if you save a JPEG at a very low compression setting and then convert to .bmp and then convert back to JPEG at a very low compression setting, the results are actually quite good.

Just don't repeat the process too many times.

[n~s]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
My uninformed opinon is that all the nasty DRM is bundled into iTunes itself. Let's face it, iTunes does give you more options than perhaps any other online music service, but if you find even that too restrictive, you can try and spring the AAC file out of iTunes and have more freedom.

That seems to be the case, the Apple Store .m4p files can be opened in Peak and manipulated just like any other audio file.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by n~s:
That seems to be the case, the Apple Store .m4p files can be opened in Peak and manipulated just like any other audio file.

yay! now if I can only get those files to play in Linux, then I'll convert my whole collection to AAC

[chabig]

Originally posted by entrox:
I'm not sure if AAC -> CD -> AAC would incur any loss of quality. Just think about it: lossy encoding works by removing data, which the human brain can't interpret or filter out from the rest. If you burn this stripped audio stream on CD, you lose nothing as the data gets transferred 1:1. You now have the choice of re-encoding that into either MP3 or AAC - if you encode into MP3, it will filter out even more data, since it works differently from the original encoder. But, and this is the point I'm not exactly sure about, if you encode it with AAC *again*, you should get no loss, because the data this second encoding process would filter out was already filtered out by the first encoding run. Since I'm not familiar with the algorithm AAC uses, one should try this out - I can't do it, as I can't even hear the difference between an 128k MP3 and CD. I probably blew my ears out when I was still young and stupid ;-)

You made a fundamental mistake when you said "You lose nothing as the data gets transferred 1:1." Since AAC is lossy, you do not get an exact replica of the original when you burn the ACC to CD. If you then reencode the new CD to AAC (or any other lossy format), you will get degradation because the compression algorithms are working on different source material.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by n~s:
That seems to be the case, the Apple Store .m4p files can be opened in Peak and manipulated just like any other audio file.

I am coming to the conclusion that Peak must be able to read those protected AAC files because it may actually be using QuickTime to read them. You still get an uncompressed audio stream that you can play with (and save in MP3, correct?), but I'll bet you can't use Peak to convert protected AAC files that you're not authorized for.

There definitely is some additional header info in the protected AAC file itself that Tunes interprets -- I can see my name in the file when I do a hex dump -- but other players (like faad2 on Linux) can't process those files. (Then again, I haven't had much luck getting faad to even play non-protected AAC files that I ripped myself in iTunes, but they fail in a different manner (something about not being ablt to process the gain in the file...))

However, I'm willing to bet that the actual data payload is not encrypted, because when you load a .m4p file into an iPod, the file that is written onto the iPod is the exact same file as the one you have in your iTunes library (md5 sigs match). This means that either the data payload isn't encrypted and just the header information is different, or it is encrypted and the iPod is doing the decryption on the fly. I don't think it has enough horsepower for that, but I could be wrong.

Besides, one of Apple's Tech Notes says that you can use AAC-protected files with third-party players, as long as those players can play AAC files made with an MPEG-4 based codec. The implication is that players that conform to the standard (but aren't aware of the existence os the FairPlay DRM) will play even the .m4p files. And if standards-compliant hardware players can play it, it's only a matter of time before standards-compliant software players can play it.

All reports indicate that the quality loss from burning a CD and re-encoding the file will be acceptable for most non-audiophiles like myself. All I want to do is play the music I buy on Linux and Solaris, and if I have a path to do that right now, even if it's time consuming, than I'm happy!

[Wevah]

Originally posted by chabig:
You made a fundamental mistake when you said "You lose nothing as the data gets transferred 1:1." Since AAC is lossy, you do not get an exact replica of the original when you burn the ACC to CD. If you then reencode the new CD to AAC (or any other lossy format), you will get degradation because the compression algorithms are working on different source material.

This is correct. AAC -> CDDA -> AAC will lose some quality.

[noisefloor]

"Yes but his quesiton is, burning a file *already* AAC to cd, then ripping it back *as* AAC. In this case, no, no data loss, because the format remains the same throughout."

No it doesn't. When it's burned to CD, it becomes PCM audio, and must be encoded to AAC a second time.

"if you encode it with AAC *again*, you should get no loss, because the data this second encoding process would filter out was already filtered out by the first encoding run."

Except on the second encode, there are encoding artifacts (even if they aren't audible to most people). The encoder doesn't know what is "good" audio and what is the result of the first compression pass.

[chadseld]

I have tried AAC(128) -> CD -> AAC(128) -> CD -> AAC(128).

The resulting file had been re-ripped twice. I could not hear any degradation at all. I'm sure there is 'some' degradation, but it is minor to say the least.

I would be happy doing AAC(128) -> CD -> AAC(192). Just overshoot the goal so that psychology doesn't play a factor

Anyone want to speculate about AAC(128) -> CD -> AAC(+256) being 'lossless' because 256 is the nyquist rate? Anyone know details about AAC that can shed some light?

[chabig]

Originally posted by chadseld:
Anyone want to speculate about AAC(128) -> CD -> AAC(+256) being 'lossless' because 256 is the nyquist rate?

What do you mean by "Nyquist rate"? Nyquist's theorem isn't about bit rates, it's about sampling frequency.

[coolmacdude]

For those interested in the possible quality loss of removing the DRM, I ran the following test.

1. Took a purchased 128k AAC file, opened with Peak and saved as an uncompressed AIFF.

2. Opened the AIFF with iTunes and converted to a 160k MP3.

3. Result: I can not hear any distinction between the two files.

4. I opened both the original AAC and the converted MP3 in Peak to inspect the waveforms. There was a noticeable difference between them and the mp3 definitely had weaker levels at some points. Picture here.

Conclusion: While there is a reduction in quality from doing this, it will be probably be noticeable only to people with very acute hearing or pro audio types.

[legacyb4]

A comment from a troll if I've ever seen one... still, one (barely) worth typing a response back to.

Apple has gone out and corraled in the big music players to (finally) agree to a reasonably non-restrictive distribution method for digital music.

If you feel such a need to go out of your way to pirate music, stick with standard MP3 or even AAC (MP4) files that you and your friends rip on your own. Apple can't stop you, the music folks will gnash their teeth about it, but at least now they've come back with an acceptable situation and are fighting fire with fire ("it's cheap enough to buy, so just buy it...").

However, what I'm curious to know is why do you go out of your way to make it a point to copy music from Apple? Doing so will only force the issue for stricter DRM techniques farther down the line (look at Windows XP activation and their attempt to stop rampant pirating of their OS; sure, it's still beatable but it now creates an extra usage hurdle to for non-pirating users...)

If you are too cheap to pay, Apple has still left you the tools to continue on your merry pirating ways in private; just don't make it worse for the rest of us by eventually forcing Apple to put more restrictions on "normal" usage of our music.

Originally posted by Putta:
I am sure we will find out soon enough - I would test it now if I was in the US (@&$*!!!!).

So, everyone - in a sense of solidarity - start doing this and posting the filtered AAC tracks on limewire (with the prefix "AMS" - Apple music Store) so that they are easy to find.

Anyone who writes back about music piracy and ethics - bite me!

[Toyin]

Originally posted by legacyb4:
If you feel such a need to go out of your way to pirate music, stick with standard MP3 or even AAC (MP4) files that you and your friends rip on your own. Apple can't stop you, the music folks will gnash their teeth about it, but at least now they've come back with an acceptable situation and are fighting fire with fire ("it's cheap enough to buy, so just buy it...").

However, what I'm curious to know is why do you go out of your way to make it a point to copy music from Apple? Doing so will only force the issue for stricter DRM techniques farther down the line (look at Windows XP activation and their attempt to stop rampant pirating of their OS; sure, it's still beatable but it now creates an extra usage hurdle to for non-pirating users...)

If you are too cheap to pay, Apple has still left you the tools to continue on your merry pirating ways in private; just don't make it worse for the rest of us by eventually forcing Apple to put more restrictions on "normal" usage of our music.

ditto

[MilkmanDan]

People,

Honestly it could be worse. I have a lot of music, which I never paid for. I hate buying music, but I found Apples music store and the rights you get as a user to be acceptable. The only downside is I can't pirate the music as well as before. At least to my friends. I mean, if this was microsoft or any other big business, well, we've seen the restults before. We couldn't do anything with our music. Hell, we probably ahve to pay a monthly fee just to keep our music. I believe Apple has found a great way for the majority of users (meaning non college student music fiends) to get music at a resonable price. AAC is much better than being forced to use Windows Media Formatt. Live with the small pains, or just continue using MP3s.

[rockhaus]

Interesting thread, to say the least. Glad to see iTunes 4 and older iPods can encode anything to MP4 (AAC).

As I understand it, one need not upgrade to iTunes 4 unless they want Music Store access from within iTunes.

One need not upgrade their older iPod's software unless they want MP4 playback on iPod.

Using AACelerator, I have batch-converted many MP3s to MP4 and iTunes 3 plays them just fine. I leave them unchecked so as not to synch with iPod, if they even try. Also, they have blank icons. No biggie. iTunes 3, meanwhile, using the older QT, will convert them back to MP3 if desired. Advanced Menu/Convert Selection.

Regarding a hack escape from DRM in order to participate in sharing by giving tracks away, I have to wonder why try? The SAME tracks are already available on Gnutella.

Here's two ideas: Unless you only want to play a music CD in an older player, such as your car (because you don't have an iPod to adapt to your car), you can burn in MP3 format. iTunes is not the only way to burn a CD. You can drag MP3 files to a blank CDROM and they will play in an MP3 compatible player such as most new stereos (including cars) and DVD players.

Isn't your Mac and iTunes part of your home entertainment system? I stopped using CDs long ago. I buy one, rip it, give it away, and am free of the physical media. I like playlists that are longer than 80 minutes. I don't care what album a track is from unless the whole album is conceptual, like The Wall, which is nice to hear back to back.

Second, to give music to a friend on CD makes sense to many. If the friend is going to use a hard drive (such as iPod) for playback, iTunes is not needed to burn the CD.

Again, drag the tracks to a CDROM and click Burn in the Finder. iTunes will not re-encode them, and I don't believe QT will be be involved. It is a COPY OF THE FILES.

Finally, (and this is the best way I've found to capture crossfades between tracks), Audio Hijack is highly recommended. Unless DRM or multigeneration loss from repeated copying has reared its ugly head and compromised playback quality, Audio Hijack will capture the output of one app at a time and encode that STREAM as a new file, in the format and size of your choice. This can be time consuming as it done in real-time, especially a whole playlist (with or without crossfades, it can be one big honkin' file). But if you're serious about removing DRM, I imagine this has to be one way to guaruntee it.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by Zoom:
Apple has some KB articles out not, and this one talks about the "authorized computer" stuff. The line that scares me is this last one...

The Music Store is governed by its Terms of Service, which permits changing by Apple of the authorization policy.

I can't find a copy of the "Terms of Service" on the Apple web site. Can anyone post it?

http://www.info.apple.com/usen/musicstore/terms.html

you can also find a link on the bottom of the main store page in iTunes (aong with the privacy policy, and terms of sale.)

[Amorya]

The reason I want to break the DRM is peace of mind. I doubt I would ever need to do so in my normal listening habits (2 Macs, 1 iPod, the occasional Minidisc) but I want to know that, if I ever needed to, I'd be able to do what the hell I liked with the files.

If the restrictions are indeed built into itunes (but other players will work fine) I'll be a lot happier.


Amorya

[piracy]

1. The only reason iTunes Music Store even exists in the first place is because of DRM in some form. No matter what kind of pressure Apple applied, there would have been no way, ever, that the record labels would have allowed organized sales like this with no DRM. And the service would have been worthless if it didn't have agreements with every one of the big 5. So stop your b*tching and whining and realize that Apple has worked its a** off to have the LEAST amount of DRM possible applied to this service for the good of the consumer. The use of AAC resulted from, in part, the NEED (yes, NEED) for DRM of some sort, in addition to its massively better quality than other compression formats, including MP3 and Ogg Vorbis.

2. Provisions for DRM frameworks are a part of the MPEG-4 specification, of which AAC is a part. The DRM scheme that has been implemented is dubbed "FairPlay". It restricts playing the file - either natively or streamed - on up to 3 computers authorized by the same Apple ID of the original purchaser. Information about the authorized computers is stored at Apple. Information about the purchaser of the file is stored in the file itself as a part of the DRM framework. When an AAC file protected by FairPlay ("Protected AAC") is is played, the authorization is verified. "Other players" cannot play these files. The "restriction" isn't in iTunes; it's just that iTunes is the only agent that can authorize the playback, and the QuickTime (6.2 and newer) subsystem is the only thing that can understand playing them. You can certainly play Protected AAC files in any other player that can use QuickTime to play back files, but only after iTunes has been used to authorize that computer, at which point QuickTime, or any other player thatn uses QuickTime, will be able to play it. (As has already been pointed out, there are ways around this [other than burning the file to a CD].)

3. NOT ALL AAC FILES ARE PROTECTED! It seems some people have the misconception that all AAC files have some kind of DRM in them now. THEY DO NOT. AAC files CAN have DRM. Files you create yourself, in any format, including all audio you rip/manipluate with iTunes, do not have DRM of any kind. Currently, the only Mac filetype of any kind with any kind of DRM are purchased AAC files from the iTunes Music Store. Purchased Protected AAC files have the extension .m4p; AAC files with no protection - from ripping yourself, for example - have the extension .m4a.

4. AAC compressed audio at 128 kbps (stereo) has been judged by expert listeners to be indistinguishable from the original uncompressed audio source. AAC at 128 kbps provides significantly superior performance than does MP3 at 128 kbps.

5. When you burn purchased AAC files to CD, ALL DRM IS STRIPPED. Audio CDs conform to a specification called Red Book audio. There is no provision for any kind of DRM or copy protection of any sort in Red Book. There aren't even really ways to implement it without cheating (i.e., making corrupted audio CDs). There is no trace of personal information or DRM in the music once burned to CD. You can then re-rip these CDs in any format you wish. Because AAC (as well as MP3 and others) are what is known as a "lossy" compression scheme, some of the original data is lost. The goal is that this loss of data should be undetectable by the user. Once it is burned back to CD, the same losses are of course retained. However, there is nothing inherent in the newly uncompressed CD audio that prevents it from being successfully reripped. Yes, more data will be lost. Will your ear be able to detect this loss? Unlikely. There is nothing magic about this that will make re-ripped audio suck. Think about it: if the audio on the burned CD still sounds good, there is no reason it cannot reasonably be recompressed. The same algorithms are being applied to a CD burned from lossy compression as a "real" CD. Will there be further loss? Yes. Will you hear it? As I said, probably not. There is of course a point where this cycle would yield noticable degradation, however, one burn and one rerip is unlikely to be detectable by the vast, vast majority of people. Think of it as recording from tape to tape. Try it. See for yourself.

Once burned and reripped, all DRM is gone. Do this if you are so inclined. But please, don't be lame and start pirating music from the iTunes Music Store.

6. To those whining about DRM, calm the f*ck down. This isn't "Apple becoming MS". This is Apple being pragmatic and doing what HAS to be done to operate a store of this magnitude with content and licensing from ALL the major labels. And before anyone says the labels are raping everyone and Apple should host all independents: get real.

7. To those who have managed to keep this thread going for several days without any real answers and a bunch of I don't knows, maybes, and FUD (with very few exceptions of some good information): I literally can't believe it - I kept reading the thread fully expecting someone to have answered all the questions ... and never finding it. Jesus people, this information is not that hard to come across. Also, the basic application of logic doesn't hurt either.

Originally posted by Putta:
So, everyone - in a sense of solidarity - start doing this and posting the filtered AAC tracks on limewire (with the prefix "AMS" - Apple music Store) so that they are easy to find.

"Solidarity"? You are an a**hole.

Anyone who writes back about music piracy and ethics - bite me!

Shut the f*ck up. Thanks.

[grahamwest]

There's some pretty good info in this thread, so thanks guys.

I'm interested in how to turn the store-bought AAC files into MP3s so I can use them with my car CD/MP3 player. I'm mostly a PC guy and my only mac is a graphite iBook with a regular CD-ROM drive.

As I see it there are two options here. Either I get iTunes to make a CD image file which I can burn from PC using Nero or somesuch, or I can convert the DRM-ed AAC files directly into AIFF or MP3 on the iBook.

I've seen reference to Peak and AudioHacker here, does someone feel like giving some pros and cons for the best way to accomplish either of my choices? For that matter, anyone have a third suggestion?