Mike Masnick wonders if Lala is engaging in Newspeak when it describes its tracks as “DRM-free.” Something certainly smells fishy:
We noted the oddity of supposedly DRM-free files only being able to be loaded onto iPods, since that suggested there clearly was some form of restriction on the files. However, it’s becoming clear that there are certainly some types of DRM being used. In Bob Lefsetz’ latest blog post, he notes that each file has a watermark that identifies its owner, and if you’re not the owner, you won’t be able to play that song. In other words, the supposedly DRM-free tracks… have DRM. It’s just a slightly different type of DRM.
I don’t think this is necessarily true. It’s possible, for example, that it’s just a watermark, in which case the files wouldn’t play in other Lala players but it would play in any other music player. Of course, that would be kind of a stupid business strategy, because it would put your own software at a disadvantage. But maybe the labels, who are not exactly known for their business savvy, were convinced that would be an effective piracy deterrent.
I haven’t had time to look into this in a lot of detail, but so far I haven’t been able to find a clear description of how the watermarking system would work. The Lefsetz reference is rather vague. Does anyone know if Lala has made a clear statement of exactly what format the songs will be in and how the watermarking will work?
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.