Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tichy | Hacker News Reader

Is Amazon DRM free? Doesn't it encode the name of the buyer in the MP3? (I honestly don't know, it just seems likely they do that).

View on HN

Amazon doesn't include the name of the buyer in the music file - either in the file's mp3 encoding itself or in the ID3 tag. Tagging the ID3 as you download the file is technically possible, but changing the MP3 encoding on-the-fly as you buy/download the file isn't particularly feasible for several reasons. The most notable is that there would be a 'privacy' outcry from the dark corners of the web, the way they reacted when Apple seemed to do something like that with iTunes.

If you have any suspicion about it, get a friend to buy a random MP3 from Amazon using her account and buy the same file yourself using your account. Compare the two MP3s using whatever tool you want; I did, and they seemed to be absolutely identical.

FWIW, there is a field in the Amazon MP3 ID3 - under 'Comments' - which says Amazon.com Song ID: 20XXXXXXX (I Xed the last seven digits). That's a unique song identifier, not a user identifier.

Thanks, that is good to know. Can't wait for that stuff to come to Amazon Germany.

Encoding the name of the buyer in the MP3 is not DRM. It doesn't restrict your usage of the media in any way. If they do that, I fully support it.

It restricts your ability to sell the MP3. I can sell a CD, which to me factors into the price (assuming I could sell the CD for half of the new price eventually).

Color me unimpressed. Encoding a buyer's name is fair game. You still have full control of the info you got.

I didn't say that it is not fair, but I think it definitely is DRM. So maybe it is an example of fair use of DRM.

I still prefer my MP3s name-free, but that only means that I would pay more for name-free than for named MP3s.

DRM stands for digital rights management. Encoding your name doesn't manage your rights in any way.

Maybe it doesn't enforce them, but suppose the police scans my computer and finds lots of MP3s signed to Matt Maroon, would it really not matter? (Honestly I don't know - but if it doesn't matter, why encode the name to begin with?).

Honestly my argument was more semantics. It's not DRM. It's something else, and certainly less odious. All they're doing is creating a way to track illegal activity.

I wonder what the laws are on selling the track and then deleting it though. Is that as legal as selling a cd, or do you get sign some sort of legal agreement when you purchase the track? I've never purchased a single track online so I don't know much about that.

You want to sell an MP3 of a song you haven't made?

Also, maybe you could just remove the information from the file if it bothers you.

Just saying that I can sell a CD. So if a CD costs 10€ in the shop and I know I could sell it for 5€ on ebay, it only costs me 5€ to listen to the songs (admittedly, plus the work for selling it). Not suggesting to rip the CD and then sell it, but if you tire of the music, you can sell it.

Right, but originally you were talking about how the information in an MP3 file restricts your ability to sell it.

You can probably imagine how silly it would feel to make sure you lose your MP3 after selling it, and what would you even ask for the MP3? Fiddy cent ?

Bullshit. Or would you mind if I tagged you and your other possessions so I could track you and remove your privacy? It's latent DRM, only awaiting the lawsuit against you to activate it. Whether or not it's wrong to do or even effective is another discussion, but it is most definitely a handle by which they can control, or "manage", your rights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com