Experiences so far with iTunes Plus?


Experiences so far with the new DRM-free iTunes Plus?

I think it is a good step. One in the right direction - that is as "a consumer" and "music purchaser". I think the initial implemtation has been a bit fraught and it still fails to recognise my old DRM'd content - such as it is. I am not particularly bothered as I would not pay to upgrade them anyway. I quickly saw iTunes Store material for what it was, worthless (IMHO).

I think the reaction to Apple embedding user info in the tracks is not in anyway wrong and is all part of a more logical solution to online sales. It does not bother me because altho I occasionally download illegally I only share what I have downloaded and never share purchased music.

Although 256kbps is slightly under what I prefer (320kbps is what I get from Bleep, Boomkat and others) I am browsing through the iTunes Plus reggae selection and it is likely that I will buy. I hope others follow EMI's lead.

I am interested in other peoples experiences and opinions.
Last edited:


Active member
I think Apple should warn clients that they're embedding their info in the files, anything else is at best wilful negligence. Despite being fascinated by and monitoring changes in music distribution and discovery (www.musicinterfaces.com), the only music file I've ever purchased from iTMS or any other vendor was a version of La Paloma for my father in law's funeral. I think paying extra for higher bit-rate and lack of DRM is insulting, but will hopefully prove to be a short-lived measure.

Funnily enough, when I read your reference to embedding user info in tracks, my heart leapt - I thought I'd missed the news that Apple were adding to each file all that lovely info that appears on covers nowadays - musicians, producers, engineers, date of recording, etc. Hey-ho.


Thanks for that. I am not sure I agree about the user info but it's done.

My point in making the post was this. There are a lot of complaints from artists, producers and distributors on here about illegal file downloads and the harm done to the income for artists. A large number of consumers, myself included, find it convenient to obtain music online. As someone who spends a lot of money on music and has a hefty record collection I am a little fussy as to what I buy. Like a lot of people I am against DRM and will not buy DRM tracks, especially the low bit-rate tosh on ITMS.

People do buy music on ITMS tho and quite a lot of it. This surely, even if not your preference, is good for artists. Adding non-DRM tracks at a higher bit-rate should attract even more people to purchase and if this is done instead of, or even alongside, illegal downloading this is surely a good thing?

I am still not convinced that I will use it until I can confirm that if I lose a track (hardware crash) I can download it again. That is what I have come to expect from BoomKat and Bleep, etc.

I should perhaps have asked for "opinions on" rather than "experiences with" as a large number of dissensus-ers probably give iTunes a wide berth. I was more wondering if they felt this was a positive move, one that would benefit artists and labels.