Headline Feeds
Digital music lovers had only just begun to do their happy dance Wednesday following Apple's (Nasdaq: AAPL) launch of its iTunes Plus DRM-free service before word came that the dream of DRM-free music may come with a price in addition to the extra 30 cents per track iTunes charges.
Shortly after the iTunes Plus service went live, reports surfaced asserting that the tracks had been embedded with the purchasers' full names and the e-mail 
addresses associated with their iTunes accounts, all included in song information files that come bundled with each track.
The identifying content was also reportedly found in copyright-protected tracks purchased from the regular iTunes site. The revelation has many digital audiophiles wondering if they have traded one form of restriction for another, more insidious version.
No Sharing, Please
Apple on Wednesday loudly heralded the arrival of digitally unlocked files to its iTunes Plus Music Store. In launching the new service, the company made good on January statements by CEO Steve Jobs calling on the music industry to end the practice of encoding digital rights management (DRM) technology into music files purchased online. Apple itself uses a form of DRM, known as "FairPlay," in normal music files sold on iTunes. FairPlay limits iTunes-sold songs' playability to only Apple-branded portable media devices. Wednesday marked the first non-DRM files sold through the store.
The move was lauded despite the 30 percent price increase that came with the DRM-free tunes.
The discovery of the personal information, however, has sparked a controversy, as it is not clear why Apple has included personally identifying information on all of the songs it sells or what the information could be used for.
Some reports postulate that the information could be used as an antipiracy measure to help record labels identify who posted what songs to a given peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing network. However, since the information is also included on tracks with DRM, it could be a function of Apple's administrative or record-keeping system.
Apple did not reply to MacNewsWorld's requests for comment.
Do the Right Thing
"We should be clear on one thing: Just because EMI and Apple -- and more to come -- have removed DRM from their files does not mean those files can be shared," James McQuivey, a Forrester Research analyst, told MacNewsWorld.
Any digital music lovers who feel cheated because they bought a DRM-free piece of music from Apple only to find that Apple assigns ownership of that track to them -- and them only -- have missed the point of DRM-free music, McQuivey explained.
"The goal is to make [the songs] easier to use, not easy to steal. Being upset that a product you bought for yourself is traceable to you is a little clueless," he said.
Apple is well within its right to include the identifying information because the company has an interest in making sure users do not copy the music, McQuivey pointed out. iTunes customers must consent to a users agreement when purchasing tracks from the site.
"Your privacy is only compromised if you choose to redistribute the track -- something you don't have the right to do anyway. Apple could have used an encrypted account number to hide this tracking. The fact that they didn't suggests they are being anything but big brother about protecting their legal rights," he added.
Sorry, No Free Lunch
"Is it any different than a property tag you might put on a CD?" asked Gartner (NYSE: IT) analyst Mike McGuire, who told MacNewsWorld that he is at a loss to understand what the problem is "unless you're embarrassed that you like Twisted Sister and someone might notice that."
It could be the case that other purveyors of digital music files, including Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) and soon-to-be music retailer Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN), also embed personal information in tracks they sell, McGuire pointed out.
"This is part and parcel of the way things have to work these days," he asserted. "I'm not defending Apple, but in terms of the notion that they have convinced at least one of the major labels not to put DRM on these files, and how different is that from me looking in the window of your car and seeing a receipt from the CD store?"
Users who post the songs on P2P networks, he said, could find themselves receiving more spam, but added that he does not see any added risk beyond that.
"Frankly, I would say the risk is relatively minimal," he stated. "We frequently expose that and other kinds of information when we use things like ATMs.
"If you're a music person who puts things online, the benefit you get from no DRM is that you can put that out there on the Web. You can probably find somebody that will strip that information off the files for you. So it's not as if this is impending the use of [music files], which has been what the big resistance people have had to DRM," he explained.
"So, as always, there is no free lunch here," McGuire concluded.
Talkback: 
