In this case the policy is to make the music files uniquely identifiable to users so that the music can be traced back to the individual who originally purchased the file (and who potentially breached the copyright holders rights when they shared it). And the technical measure taken is the insertion of a unique identifier into that file.

Arguably, Apple’s approach to including private information in those files could be interpreted as DRM, it’s not the same type of DRM implemented in systems like CSS or AACS, but I would argue that it still could be defined as DRM (if someone, say a large media company, wanted to make that argument in court), and I wonder if any tools or measures taken to strip this information from those files would fall foul of the DMCA?

I agree that it’s wrong to charge more for DRM-free music, and also wrong not to tell customers that there is hidden data in the file.

@lIHd

I still wouldn’t call it DRM because it’s not managing your rights using technology. It doesn’t stop you doing anything legal e.g. making a backup, or converting to use on different devices. It just makes copies tracable — which of course you *should* be told about.

It would appear that apple is being a tad disingenuous in claiming that their music is DRM free.