News

Puretracks Music Service Dropping DRM

Thursday, February 22nd, 2007 at 11:50 AM - by

The Canadian music download service Puretracks is throwing its support behind the anti-digital rights management movement by removing the copy protection in many of the MP3 tracks sold through its site. The service is starting with tracks from independent labels, and plans to add additional DRM-free songs from the rest of its library on a weekly basis, according to the Financial Post.

Puretracks expects that the move will increase its bottom line since the DRM-free songs will be playable on any MP3-compatible device, including Apple's iPod. Company CEO and president, Alistair Mitchell, commented "We wouldn't be offering this if we didn't think it would grow our revenues. We're going to help those label partners we're working with sell more of their music; that's the bottom line."

The Puretracks decision follows the open letter Apple CEO Steve Jobs wrote denouncing DRM as ineffective. He also stated that Apple would drop DRM from tracks purchased at the iTunes Store if the record labels would allow it.

Not every label is happy with DRM. Ric Arboit, president of Nettwerk Music, said his label would prefer to sell copy protection-free songs, but the big labels control how tracks are sold online. He commented "We would have done it from day one if it was available to us, but when it came to the indies, that's what they had in place."

Puretracks may have a relatively small library at 1.3 million tracks, but it is sending a big message to the record labels. Mainstream record labels may start to feel the pressure of the anti-DRM movement now that music services and independent labels are starting to openly speak out against copy protection.

10 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

davebarnes said:

member since 12 Jan 2005 with 114 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:23 pm

I just love this http://www.puretracks.com/content/viewer_page.aspx?cid=UserDetection_MacOSNotAllowed on their website.

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 964 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:24 pm

What if the labels go to "passive DRM"? This might involve sticking purchaser account information in a tag within the file or watermarking the file. So you're free to copy, but also free to get caught. Good or bad. Discuss.

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2001 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:46 pm

Quote
davebarnes wrote:
I just love this http://www.puretracks.com/content/viewer_page.aspx?cid=UserDetection_MacOSNotAllowed on their website.

That refers to using Windows Media Player technology, which IS the DRM. Once they post DRM-free music, it should be playable on ANY player.

Quote this post ↓

rickcurran said:

member since 26 Sep 2006 with 12 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:03 pm

Mmm, very interesting! The ball is rolling

Quote this post ↓

Mikuro said:

member since 15 Jun 2002 with 444 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:05 pm

Quote
gslusher wrote:
Quote
davebarnes wrote:
I just love this http://www.puretracks.com/content/viewer_page.aspx?cid=UserDetection_MacOSNotAllowed on their website.

That refers to using Windows Media Player technology, which IS the DRM. Once they post DRM-free music, it should be playable on ANY player.

But will they care to change their web site to let Mac users in? I can't even look around as it is, let alone buy/download tracks.

Quote this post ↓

Rainy Day said:

member since 07 Jun 2005 with 607 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:11 pm

Quote
Bosco wrote:
What if the labels go to “passive DRM”? This might involve sticking purchaser account information in a tag within the file or watermarking the file. So you're free to copy, but also free to get caught. Good or bad. Discuss.

The problem with this approach is it’s not proof you shared your music with anyone. What if an iPod or Mac is stolen? Or what if a friend who has access to your computer hooks up their iPod or USB drive without your knowledge or consent?

All a digital watermark proves is that you were honest enough to buy the music in the first place, not that you intended to share it with others.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:12 pm

Quote
Mikuro wrote:
But will they care to change their web site to let Mac users in? I can't even look around as it is, let alone buy/download tracks.

Who knows? Check back there in a few weeks.

Quote this post ↓

brett_x said:

member since 24 Jan 2006 with 307 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm

Quote
Mikuro wrote:

But will they care to change their web site to let Mac users in? I can't even look around as it is, let alone buy/download tracks.

You can activate the Debug menu in Safari (google it) and change the "User Agent" to Windows IE 6.0 so their web server thinks you're on a PC. That works every time for "Cupertino barricades" like this. (I'm going to have to trademark that term... maybe wikipedia it.. then it becomes "truthy".)

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 964 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:50 pm

Rainy, those are all great and obvious points. But what if the labels move toward it anyway? And what if instead of using it as evidence in court, they were to simply blacklist egregious offenders from purchasing? We have credit ratings that vary our individual access to and price of credit based on past behavior. What if we have a similar "digital goods" rating? You keep your music off the file sharing networks and you might be able to buy songs for $.50. If you're sharing stuff, songs might cost you $4, and you might become someone for the RIAA to watch more closely. Good or bad. Discuss.

Quote this post ↓

brett_x said:

member since 24 Jan 2006 with 307 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:30 pm

I like the idea fort he most part, Bosco. But I don't think it is really enforceable. If someone stole your iPod, your digital goods rating could go down? The only way I see that system working is if every device was encrypted with a password. Maybe that is the future? Encrypt your music, or it could end up being "out there".

I do think people need to be held accountable for sharing copyrighted material. But it shouldn't ever come back to bite honest people in the ass. And I'm not about to try to teach my parents (who are over 60) how to encrypt their music with a secure, but rememberable password. (But I guess they already do that with DRM... so maybe... ?)

Interesting discussion though... Maybe it should go to the forums?

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.