Congress has cut federal funding for public media — a $3.4 million loss for LAist. We count on readers like you to protect our nonprofit newsroom. Become a monthly member and sustain local journalism.
This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.
Ask the MACist -- DRM and You

Welcome to the latest edition of 'Ask the MACist', the column where I answer your Macintosh and other technology questions. Our question this week comes from Sam, who lives all the way in Portland. He asks: "Even though Apple and EMI are not going to have DRM on their songs, is there any way to have songs from other companies in your iTunes without DRM to?
With Apple announcing yesterday that they, along with music giant EMI (whose artists include Coldplay, The Rolling Stones and Norah Jones) would be offering higher quality DRM-free music starting in May, many people are wondering how this effects the music they like to listen to. Well, the good news is that Apple will provide an easy way for you to upgrade your entire library of EMI artist's music to the higher quality, DRM-free version for just 30 cents a song.

If you don't already own the song or album, new DRM-free music from EMI and iTunes will cost you $1.29 per song. For the extra 30 cents, in addition to no DRM, you get songs that will be encoded in Apple's AAC format at a 256 kbps bit rate -- instead of the usual rate of 128 kbps. That's double the quality for not even double the price. Actually, it might not seem like such a big deal but I can tell you that music encoded at 256 kbps is vastly superior to music encoded at the lower rate. So, that's a good thing for people who really love having the highest quality music they can get.
So what does this mean for music you already have that isn't from EMI but does have DRM? Well, the good news about that is you have a way to use that music any way you want by removing the DRM from it. First, let me say that as far as I know, this is a legit work-around and not illegal in any way. That said, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not encouraging you to break the law in any way. I am merely providing information. What you do with the information is up to you.
Ok, now that the LAist legal department is happy, let's get to it. Removing DRM from your music purchased through iTunes is easy -- whether its from EMI or not. All you need to do is burn a CD using iTunes of the music you purchased and then put that CD back in your drive and import the music back into iTunes again. If you do that, the DRM will be removed from the songs. It's that simple. Of course, now that EMI has decided to remove DRM from its songs, we can hope that other labels wil follow suit and eventually this work-around won't be necessary. Until then, enjoy your DRM-free music -- however you acquire it.
Ok, that's it for this week's 'Ask the MACist.' But remember, if you have a question about anything Mac, Mac-related, or even something about other tech like TiVo, cell phones, Blackberry (or even Windows), send it to me, The MACist, at: themacist at gmail dot com.
About Chris Ullrich: Chris is the technology editor at LAist as well as a frequent contributor to other sites like Cinematical and Comic Book Resources. He also consults with clients in entertainment and related industries about how technology can best help them exceed their goals.
All logos, product names, etc. are copyright or trademark of their respective owners.
As Editor-in-Chief of our newsroom, I’m extremely proud of the work our top-notch journalists are doing here at LAist. We’re doing more hard-hitting watchdog journalism than ever before — powerful reporting on the economy, elections, climate and the homelessness crisis that is making a difference in your lives. At the same time, it’s never been more difficult to maintain a paywall-free, independent news source that informs, inspires, and engages everyone.
Simply put, we cannot do this essential work without your help. Federal funding for public media has been clawed back by Congress and that means LAist has lost $3.4 million in federal funding over the next two years. So we’re asking for your help. LAist has been there for you and we’re asking you to be here for us.
We rely on donations from readers like you to stay independent, which keeps our nonprofit newsroom strong and accountable to you.
No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, press freedom is at the core of keeping our nation free and fair. And as the landscape of free press changes, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust, but the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news from our community.
Please take action today to support your trusted source for local news with a donation that makes sense for your budget.
Thank you for your generous support and believing in independent news.

-
After rising for years, the number of residential installations in the city of Los Angeles began to drop in 2023. The city isn’t subject to recent changes in state incentives, but other factors may be contributing to the decline.
-
The L.A. City Council approved the venue change Wednesday, which organizers say will save $12 million in infrastructure costs.
-
Taxes on the sale of some newer apartment buildings would be lowered under a plan by Sacramento lawmakers to partially rein in city Measure ULA.
-
The union representing the restaurant's workers announced Tuesday that The Pantry will welcome back patrons after suddenly shutting down six months ago.
-
If approved, the more than 62-acre project would include 50 housing lots and a marina less than a mile from Jackie and Shadow's famous nest overlooking the lake.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court lifted limits on immigration sweeps in Southern California, overturning a lower court ruling that prohibited agents from stopping people based on their appearance.