Apple Hides Account Info in DRM-Free Music 669
Alvis Dark writes "Apple launched iTunes Plus earlier today, the fruit of its agreement with EMI to sell DRM-free music. What they didn't say is that all DRM-free tracks have the user's full name and account e-mail embedded in them. Is this to discourage people from throwing the tracks up on their favorite P2P platform? 'It would be trivial for iTunes to report back to Apple, indicating that "Joe User" has M4As on this hard drive belonging to "Jane Userette," or even "two other users." This is not to say that Apple is going to get into the copyright enforcement business. What Apple and indeed the record labels want to watch closely is, will one user buy music for his five close friends?'"
The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:3, Insightful)
Trivial to remove (Score:5, Insightful)
This shouldn't matter anyway.
the acid test (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple isn't keeping tabs on anyone, and it would be trivial to remove this data from your songs. But the question remains why anyone feels violated by this
I don't have a problem with it (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what DRM should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
More details, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Do they "hide" it in the files, or put it into the comment fields? There's a difference there, especially if you want to accuse them of underhand dealings.
The article is also pretty crappy on the suggestion to convert to MP3. Why should I do that? A simple binary find&replace will be faster, safer and result in no quality loss or recoding troubles.
So a little more info on this before painting anyone as a devil would be cool.
Beats the hell out of DRM. (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference to me is that it's not trying to stop someone from doing something illegal, before they even do it. That I find very offensive, and is the whole point of DRM. I believe that the computer should let you do anything you damn well please, even if it's illegal, but that you should take the consequences later. Trading DRM for watermarking would be a huge step up, since the watermarking really doesn't affect anyone who isn't putting their tracks on P2P networks. However, we also need to realize that watermarks can't be viewed as inherently trustworthy -- what's to keep me from framing you by putting your account information on a bunch of music and then sharing it? Practically, I'm not sure how useful watermarking really is. But if it's the price for getting rid of DRM -- which treats everyone like criminals, regardless of whether they're doing anything illegal or not -- it's OK by me.
Re:the acid test (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent point. So sad you will be yelled at for 40 posts and be called an Apple Fanboy.
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the acid test (Score:1, Insightful)
If you purchase music from iTunes, and somebody who doesn't like you knows a few of the tracks you bought, it seems they could create a fake chain of "provenance" which most judges in this country would agree proved that you violated copyrights.
No, your argument is as disingenuous as any old argument about "why should I care about if big brother is watching? I'm not doing anything wrong."
Re:the acid test (Score:1, Insightful)
2. Share them
3. LOL! PWND.
Re:the acid test (Score:1, Insightful)
I Don't Care (Score:5, Insightful)
Some will be pissed about this - there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Personally, I don't care if they put my name in the file.
I want DRM-free media. I've wanted it for a long time. I want to play my music where I want, how I want, on as many devices as I want. And the whole time I've wanted that - it's never been so I can give it away to people on the internet. No one who wants to pursue this as a way of doing business is going to believe any differently.
I love buying my music via downloads. I wish I could do that with movies (not the 320x240 video iPod stuff - I mean movies for my TV), but I run Linux, I have a non-iPod player, so I need platform-independent, DRM free media.
They want to put my name in it? Go ahead. I'm not putting it out in the wild - and with any properly run computer - accidental release shouldn't be likely either.
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:3, Insightful)
Or for that matter, if I've got music my friend gave me in my library and itunes locks me out because I might be pirating music. It just depends on how much sucking up to the RIAA that Apple does.
Re:the acid test (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple, Sony, Microsoft.. (Score:5, Insightful)
my only question (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the acid test (Score:5, Insightful)
Ugh, Terrible Terrible logic. Consider the following statements.
"The government should be allowed to search people's home on a whim, because if they are law abiding citizens, they shouldn't mind the government searching through their stuff."
"People should not be allowed to take the fifth because if they are law abiding citizens, they should have not reason to hide information."
Privacy is actually important: saying anything of the form "people don't need privacy 'x' if they don't plan to break the law" is almost always a mistake.
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:5, Insightful)
Even selling used CDs hasn't come under fire. There are plenty of record stores that buy and sell CDs.
No, the problem has been uploading the songs to some P2P network and allowing millions of your "friends" to download the song. That is what they're really trying to stop. The difference between the five and the million has to do with the numbers. You are likely to have five friends, not a million. Five copies don't hurt the companies, but a million copies do. That never came up before since you would never buy a million blank CDs to copy and pass around to complete strangers.
Re:the acid test (Score:5, Insightful)
What if you lose your iPod and someone posts all your files on P2P networks? What if someone steals it? Even if "my iPod was stolen" is a valid legal defense, this still means that you are opening yourself up to legal threats (and costs) by using watermarked songs. Moreover, I don't like the idea of a portable device having thousands of internal copies of my real name and email address. (Yes, my wallet contains that information and a whole lot more--but I would still be bothered by the additional risk I incur when carrying around yet more personal information stored in a high-theft item.)
I don't know if people should feel "violated" by this watermarking of non-DRM tracks (after all, it is a whole lot better than fully-DRMed tracks)... but I do think there is some cause for concern even with watermarking. (Even for people fully compliant with the law.)
Re:Apple, Sony, Microsoft.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The disadvantage of non free software. (Score:3, Insightful)
[Real CDs] you can buy them and give them to your friends
So long as you don't rip them with iTunes. A violation of trust is a something that sticks with the violator. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Replacing the watermark to frame somebody else (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, technically, forgeable watermarks should carry no legal weight, and should be useful for nothing more than casual marketing analysis. But we all know how things like the courts, BSA, RIAA, and so forth work. "Hey, this song found on xxxxx P2P service has your name on it! You must be guilty. Here's notice of our lawsuit, or you can settle for $100000 per song." I see a lot more innocent grandmothers getting sued in the future.
The same thing could actually be used for other file formats. Want to write a Word document outlining your plans to rob the bank; be sure to "steal" somebody else's GUID out of one of their documents and replace the one in yours. Now you've got a better shot at deniability of wrongdoing.
Re:the acid test (Score:3, Insightful)
If you wanted to do this you could.
1. Encode a 64-bit ID number that is linked to your iTunes account. Who would notice 8 bytes in the header of each file.
2. Encode it in the LSB of the first 64 or last 64 bytes of the song.
Frankly this is anything but hidden.
What Privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, but that's not what we're talking about. Your songs with your embedded tags aren't made public. Your privacy isn't being violated.
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:3, Insightful)
Lame acid test (Score:2, Insightful)
I certainly won't do business with Apple is any way, shape, or form.
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trivial to remove (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, I saw the smiley, but it's a canard that needs to die.
Re:the acid test (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lame acid test (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you saying you can't be trusted with your own name and email address?
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, if you happen to notice that your copy of $SONG and your friend's copy have different checksums, take a closer look at them: chances are they're watermarked. A bit of work can identify the bits that hold the extra info. It's also very difficult to make a watermark that can survive a format shift (especially when compression is involved). So, actually, working with friends may help you here.
Re:Trivial to remove (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just like a used car (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What Privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, I neither know nor care whether this slashdot user does porn; that was for example only.
You can't trust it and never could. (Score:2, Insightful)
automatically replace the user id field with "sjobs@mac.com" on all outgoing files?
Will you get the watermarks with the same information? I don't think so.
You just can't trust non free software, not even a little. Imagine iPod or WMP was ported to GNU/LInux. It could watermark all of your files as a background process without changing size and date information. Digital restrictions are the ultimate expression of non free software. From the very beginning, it's owners have sought to keep it's users divided and helpless. The end game is money and that requires ownership of your news and culture.
Re:What Privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, theft is a possible leak source, I'll grant you that. Somebody could also break into my house and steal my bank statements, but one doesn't usually fault the bank for putting your account number and balance on your bank statement as a privacy violation.
Watermarks. (Score:4, Insightful)
the files might be watermarked in other ways, obviously more difficult to detect.
Yeah, that's one of the reasons you should never trust non free software.
FUDish! (Score:2, Insightful)
Mod me up please!! (Score:0, Insightful)
1: Adopt EFI, Trusted Computing for new Mac's.
( a powerful firmware level intended for DRM schemes sitting between OS/software and hardware, that has it's own partition on the drive, can access the internet and download, do just about anything without a OS, without your knowledge for most people)
2: Enable "Just For You" in iTunes that makes suggestions based upon your entire iTunes library.
You did get "entire" right?
3: Digital watermark content.
Eventually the future batches of computers will begin to add restrictions through EFI, no watermark match? It won't play the content.
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't vouch for "illegal" (IANAL) but can I ask why you don't think it's wrong?
The answer is simply, because I 'bought it' and its 'mine'. I don't need anyone's 'by your leave' if I lend or give my other possessions to my friends, why should a song be any different!?
If I buy a song, it should be unequivocably ok to transfer ownership of it to someone else when I'm done with it, or to lend it to them however I see fit to. Are we agreed?
Ok... so what makes a song different from my hedge clippers? Well.. if my friend has them I don't.
Ok... so how about I make a hedge clipper server, so that when my friend isn't using my clippers he puts them back in my clipper server, and he can take them back whenever he needs them. So as long as my friend and I aren't clipping at the same time we effectively both have access to the clippers, almost whenever we want them. If I did that, it would be perfectly legal right... nobody would accuse me of stealing the clippers.
Why not allow that for songs? The song server is easy to setup, since we already have this internet, and I don't have to figure out a way of teleporting objects around like I do for clippers.
But since the songs can be trivially copied, why not just make a duplicate instead of setting up a song server. Sure you and your friend might accidently listen to it at the same time, but in reality 99% of the time nobody will be using it...so the 2 minutes of overlapping use on Friday march 22nd 2007 shouldn't really be a deal breaker should it?
Now, sure I could extend that song server idea to a million people, and it starts breaking down. In the clipper example for example, it would still be legal, but the clipper collisions would occur at a frightful rate, and most people wouldn't get the clippers when they wanted them. Additionally, with the constant use the clippers would break pretty fast.
In the case of songs, faces a similiar problems - the collision rate would be too high. But at least the digital copy is effectively indestructible... but another issue arises out of copyright law:
Copyright law covers far more than just merely copying. In fact 'making copies' on its own is pretty benign all things concerned. If all people did was fill their own hard drives with copies, the industry really wouldn't give 2 shits about it. Its only when you start encroaching on the other elements of copyright that real problems occur -- things like public distribution, broadcasting, etc. Making something available to a few friends doesn't amount to 'public distribution' or 'public broadcasting'... p2p sharing DOES.
So it really is a completely different ballgame.
Re:the acid test (Score:3, Insightful)
What they're interested in (or, more accurately, the record companies are interested in) are the guys that ARE going to copy these songs straight to P2P. They'll be looking for repeat offenders: how many times does joepirate@pirate.org copy his files. Then they have a case to say "Ok, let's go after this one guy".
If you think Apple is going to knock at your door because you gave your non-DRM iTunes song to a friend, you're both alarmist and foolish.
Re:Just like a used car (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:4, Insightful)
lets take a guy at university buys a number of tracks for his girl friend for her ipod.
5 years later they broke up moved to different parts of the world maybe she or the new man in her life decides to share the tracks p2p and then the RIAA comes knocking on the door.
so they take his IPod and find probably a lot of music not registered to his account or not marked at all.
whats the balance of probability that he pirated some of them.
Can he defend himself in court or does he take the RIAA's offer.
I am disappointed apple should choose to do this, and I can't see why anyone would put themselves in such a legally risky position buying from Itunes.
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Replace your name with his name in the file.
3. Accidentally leak the files onto P2P networks.
Woops. I missed the ??? and Profit!!! steps in there.
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:3, Insightful)
The only time iTunes "locks you out" is when you attempt to play a song purchased on the iTMS somewhere else. It asks you for the password of the purchaser (you can have that song registered on 5 different machines, each year). Most people wouldn't need their music on 5 different machines a year, but for those that do, just burn the songs and RIP, DRM gone.
And don't forget, Apple had to do this to allow these songs to be available for download. If it was up to Apple, all would be DRM free.
And my advice for the P2P thing? If you feel you must distribute songs illegally, then just RIP from a CD first.
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not an Orwellian measure. It is a completely justified and reasonable attempt to make enforcement of copyright laws easier.
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:2, Insightful)
embed not full name but transaction id (Score:1, Insightful)
what i would be totally ok with is having some unique transaction id (like real-world serial number) embedded in every track. so that the leaked files could be tracked by apple (or third parties, after court order), but not by my teacher or your wife.
Man smart. The P2P is smart-ter. (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't believe I've encountered either.
Just hypothetically speaking.
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:3, Insightful)
I would call that gross exaggeration though, at worst it's not as convient as it could be, but it's hardly difficult - it's just in a hidden directory, which iTunes will happily import the contents of, just not via the default GUI (to deter casual copyright infringement, it seems clear).
I have to turn on 'View hidden files and directories' on Windows fairly often in the course of normal Windows usage, for example - it's a basic UI option accessible very easily. Of course I work with files and directories begining with a period all the time on Unix too.
It's not a big deal, and hardly an unreasonable step given the rampant abuse so many users are keen to commit (I don't think for a minute they "just want to send the odd track to friends" or something similarly reasonable - what most people want to do is rip the contents of other peoples iPods wholesale and not have to pay for any of it (all the convenience of a digital format without having to worry about the nasty payment stuff).
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no shill for the RIAA, but I think people would be wise to avoid putting paid-for DRM-less files on any P2P network. For years, people have harked on about how they object paying for DRM'd files, and that the main objection is the restriction of personal rights. Now a record company has released it's catalogue in a non-DRM format. If these files start cropping up on The Pirate Bay, it just demonstrates what a crock of shit the "restriction of rights" argument always was. People just want music for free.
Flood the P2P networks with these files, and it just gives strength to the RIAA's argument. To an extent, they can justifiably turn around and say "we gave you what you asked for, and you still abused it." Furthermore, it's hardly likely to encourage other record companies to follow suit. Granted the prices are too high, and you still can't get a high enough bitrate, but they've made a move more-or-less in the right direction. We need to show a bit of restraint, otherwise this little experiment will just be terminated by the rights owners and we'll be back at square one.
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just like a used car (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What Privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like saying it's violating your privacy to have your name on your credit cards, because your wallet might be stolen.
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile this isn't actually a change from the current iTunes DRM music which also holds your details inside. I don't think people should be particularly worried, unless they have intentions to massively distribute the music they purchase - there isn't much of an issue of their name being inside their files. We all know the "professional" piracy types will strip this stuff out anyway.
Also Apple aren't suicidal, I doubt iTunes will prevent playback of music whose name doesn't match your own.
With all that said, I think this is a great compromise, you got your DRM free music, which you can move around all your devices. Now don't spoil it by proving some retarded music exec right by massively exploiting this new feature.
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:3, Insightful)
Another "not the original poster", but here's my take... and mind you, I'm a pro-copyright/anti-piracy advocate in general.
I suppose that I must agree that mixtaping should remain within the sphere of things that are illegal, simply because to carve a niche out for it would doubtlessly leave legal loopholes that would allow legitimately wholesale piracy.
However, I think that personal mixtaping is enough of an expressive work on the part of the mixtaper (I'll admit, it's a minimally creative action, simply compiling together a list of songs, but it is moreso than simply putting your "Shares" directory online) to overcome the trivial "piracy" of transferring a few songs over, once.
In short-- mixtaping is minutely, infinitesimally, trivially damaging, but can be a form of interpersonal creative expression for the people doing it, and
Re:Mod me up please!! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a good reason for the difference between Apple and MS (in relation to how they control their respective OS): Apple makes OS X to run on their hardware ONLY. Therefore, if you are installing on ANY Mac, they have already made their money from the hardware. Remember, they are a hardware company.
MS, on the other hand, makes an OS that runs on ANY PC. They don't sell the hardware, so they try to make sure you have purchased the software. That's where they make their money.
You have to look at the reason why each company chooses to implement DRM or any other form of IP control.
Re:Mod me up please!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple already had a perfectly good BIOS replacement, you fool! It's called "Open Firmware" and -- unlike EFI -- is a widely-supported open standard.
There were exactly two reasons for EFI to exist, and neither of them are good: Intel's Not-Invented-Here syndrome and DRM. That's it.
How do you know? Can you cite a source that actually disassembled a Mac to check? 'Cause what I heard is that Apple just made it so that the TPM doesn't show up in the device manager, but is still there (in fact, I recall hearing reports of people with Macs that most certainly had TPMs noticing them mysteriously disappear after a software update).
Re:the acid test (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, maybe it's just me, but I fail to see how the RIAA has given you or us anything at all in this case.
Re:the acid test (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you just show them the bill "sold one iPod 30 GB, including 2700 songs, to James Smith for $1500".
I mean you didn't just leave copies of your songs on the iPod, right, because that would have been completely illegal, you sold the iPod with the songs which you then carefully removed from your harddisk and from any backup copies, right?
Re:Lame acid test (Score:3, Insightful)
And you don't buy anything with a credit card.
And you don't shop at those electronics stores that ask for your name and phone number.
And you don't let people give you cards, Hallmark or otherwise.
And you don't care credit cards in your wallet.
And you don't keep documents in your laptop/iPod/desktop computer or, hell, your backpack/briefcase/purse with your name on them.
Otherwise, what's your problem? Their putting your name and e-mail on files then send to you. If you burn them to CD, or convert them to MP3, that information is removed.
What's the big deal?
Re:the acid test (Score:1, Insightful)
I can come up with three legitmate and likely scenarios where this will condemn the innocent:
1) Device holding files is stolen, and files on device are then shared.
2) Device holding files are compromised by trojan, and files on device are then shared.
3) Malicious third party replaces existing name and e-mail on their files with another name, and then shares files.
These might work as a legal defense, but not everyone can afford or wants to go through the hassle of a legal defense.
Re:Mod me up please!! (Score:2, Insightful)
DRM's end result on the user is the same, regardless of Apple's or MS's reasoning for implementing it. In other words, no, he doesn't have to look at the reason why each company chooses their DRM scheme: it's still a hassle.