Apple Hides Account Info in DRM-Free Music

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?'"

Comments

The advantage then of buying real CD's

[DaveWick79]

Is that you can buy them and give them to your friends, whereas the music download sites seem to be headed toward preventing you from letting anyone else play your purchase.

Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's

[furball]

How does having my name associated with a file I paid for prevent my friends from playing my purchase?

Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's

[DaveWick79]

If my name and itunes account info start showing up on music all over P2P sites, the evil RIAA may come knocking on my door.

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 advantage then of buying real CD's

[aichpvee]

So what happens when you just replace the name and email address? Or blank it out? Does the file not play? At best this might discourage casual copying or allow them to "punish" those who do it. It pretty obviously won't discourage anything, since they're not making it known and most "casual" copiers won't even know their name and email address are in the file. Serious "pirates" (AAAAAARRRR) will just replace the names anyway. Or rip from a CD like they do now anyway. How is this even news?

Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's

[Vicissidude]

Giving the songs to five of your friends has never been the problem. They haven't really cared much if you made a mix tape or mix CD and given them away to people you know. You certainly have the right to do that and no one has really tried to stop that. In fact, they encourage that by distributing blank media and recording hardware.

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 advantage then of buying real CD's

[hpavc]

Its not a prevention mechanism, it never claimed to be. Just like a license plate doesn't prevent a car from speeding.

Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's

[Maxo-Texas]

Or if your mp3 player or laptop are stolen.

Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's

[Lockejaw]

It sounds like this instance isn't very well-hidden, but watermarks can be pretty clever. They may have some secret checksum-like formula to identify properly marked files, and I've heard of a system where common watermark removal methods still end up fingering at least one of the collaborators.
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:The advantage then of buying real CD's

[vux984]

I am not the person you responded to, but that's a good question.

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 advantage then of buying real CD's

[blackest_k]

The problem I see with water marking with someones account info is it assumes the purchase is for the account holder.

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

[daeg]

1. Download music your arch nemesis listens to and has downloaded.
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

[eclectic4]

You can't play stolen music? Darn.

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

[644bd346996]

If my name and itunes account info start showing up on music all over P2P sites, the evil RIAA may come knocking on my door. Why does that matter? The music is still DRM-free, so you have full fair-use capabilities. The personal info is only a privacy concern if you are giving away the music willy-nilly (also known as pirating). When you consider that the info is (or soon will be) trivially removable, this can't be used against consumers who are obeying the law. It will also be very difficult for this to be used against consumers who only pirate a few songs for friends.

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

[JimboFBX]

yes but 160/192 variable bitrate is optimal (I prefer 160 since it is smaller, even 128 is usually very good on most songs). 256 might as well be uncompressed. Somehow I managed to get encoding for all bitrates for mp3s available in winamp for free after installing and uninstalling a demo of an mp3 encoder program. It was verry niiicee. The digital watermarks are very unlikely to survive decompression/recompression. Point to prove? Open up paint, make a simple picture, save it as jpg. Then close paint and reopen that jpg and save it as a 24-bit bitmap. Now close that bitmap and reopen it and save it as a jpg again. Are the file sizes the same? (when I tried it, they were off by 0.01kb on a small black and white picture)

Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's

[gb506]

With 80GB iPods and replacement SATA drives going for about $0.30 per gigabyte, who gives a flying fugg about the 160 versus 256 file size issue, Jimbo? And don't come back at me saying 80GB isn't enough, 15,000 songs will suffice for anyone unless their embarking on a trip to Mars.

Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's

[@madeus]

If by 'nigh on impossible' you mean do cp -R on the music directory on the iPod and copy it to your desktop (or say, opt to 'View Hidden Files and Directories' if on Windows) then just drag the resulting copied folder to iTunes (which will happily important and rename the tracks accordingly automagically) then yeah, it is.

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

[McFadden]

Anyone who puts a file with their id embedded in it onto a bittorrent site deserves eveything that they get.

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

[JensenDied]

the people that care would be those that use portable music players with solid-state memory devices (iPod nano) because they can use them in situations where they would be jostled alot (running) and don't want bad things, like the head to crash on the 80gb from that use.

Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's

[catwh0re]

Better still, your P2P client could strip them out and put in someone elses name and details.

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

[FLEB]

I can't vouch for "illegal" (IANAL) but can I ask why you don't think it's wrong?

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 ... well... who cares? There is some element of the "advertising" angle in there as well, although I've never liked that argument, as I'm of the mind that it's up to the merchant to advertise or not as they see fit.

Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's

[l3v1]

we gave you what you asked for, and you still abused it

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.

Trivial to remove

[schnikies79]

You can right click on the file and convert it to mp3, which would erase all tracks.

This shouldn't matter anyway.

Re:Trivial to remove

[nsayer]

Actually, yes it is: Control-click.

Yes, I saw the smiley, but it's a canard that needs to die.

Re:Trivial to remove

[uradu]

Wow, it's not the duck that needs to die, but the humorless git wielding the stick.

the acid test

[crayz]

Apple puts this metadata in all the iTMS songs. Unless you're actually planning to break the law by sharing the songs, I don't see what the problem is. In fact this issue seems like a good way to distinguish between those who are against DRM because it restricts their rights to legally use their music, and those who actually just want to pirate music but use rights-based DRM arguments as an cover

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

Re:the acid test

[needacoolnickname]

...this issue seems like a good way to distinguish between those who are against DRM because it restricts their rights to legally use their music, and those who actually just want to pirate music but use rights-based DRM arguments as an (sic) cover

Excellent point. So sad you will be yelled at for 40 posts and be called an Apple Fanboy.

Re:the acid test

[pem]

I dunno, seems like a great way to frame somebody to me.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Copy someone's music files
2. Share them
3. LOL! PWND.

Re:the acid test

[projektsilence]

Not to be a troll, but this is sort of like the argument I always hear about the cameras the gubment puts up at intersections and along roads. If you're not breaking the law, no need to worry about these cameras, right?

... Just sayin...

Re:the acid test

[Buelldozer]

Sounds like a variant of "If you've done nothing wrong then you've nothing to fear!" to me.

Re:the acid test

[qortra]

DISCLAIMER, to all you Apple fanboys, I'm not trying to defame your deity here; I'm merely isolating one statement of the parent's to critique it.

Unless you're actually planning to break the law by sharing the songs, I don't see what the problem is.
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 acid test

[kebes]

Apple isn't keeping tabs on anyone... But the question remains why anyone feels violated by this

Well I would argue that Apple is, indeed, keeping tabs on people. Whether or not they use that power for good or evil is another question altogether. Then again, it's not just Apple that we have to worry about. The world is more complex than that.

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:the acid test

[LWATCDR]

Actually it seems very useless to me.
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.

Re:the acid test

[CasperIV]

It really isn't a very good point. What if I want to give someone else my IPOD? I give/sell my ipod with some songs on it, they upload them, I get sued. It's not like there is any responsible suing going on by the RIAA, they are just suing anyone who might be an easy target. Hell, they are even suing people who don't know why they are being sued. You have to remember, even if the music is being shared, it's not the primary reason for this kind of restriction.

Re:the acid test

[SilentChris]

Apple doesn't care about any of this. Seriously, they don't. It's a waste of time and effort to go after one guy copying one file to a friend.

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:the acid test

[kimvette]

Okay. The scenario I outlined above still applies. Joe Sixpack buys a collection of tracks for that divorced MILF Jane Doe. He surprises her with the tracks (it's the new millennium's version of a mix tape). She installs them to her iTunes application, and then Jane's kid installs limewire or another P2P client and uploads Jane's tracks. Now, the RIAA is going to be filing suit against Joe Sixpack, even though Joe is totally innocent.

Re:the acid test

[gnasher719]

'' It really isn't a very good point. What if I want to give someone else my IPOD? I give/sell my ipod with some songs on it, they upload them, I get sued. "

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:the acid test

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't. That's exactly the same as saying, you have nothing to hide if you have done nothing wrong.

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.

I don't have a problem with it

[aunchaki]

This doesn't really bother me. I buy music and don't give it away, which is as it should be. TANSTAAFL!

This is exactly what DRM should be.

[casualsax3]

The whole point of DRM is to stop people from pirating it. If your name is attached to it I'd say that's a pretty good deterrent. Beyond that, you can download the music, burn it, transfer it from your home PC to your office PC - you can do what you want with it... the only restriction is that you can't illegally share it online. It's focusing on punishing people who share music illegally, while at the same time not hassling the end users who just want to use their music. This is exactly what DRM should be.

More details, please

[Tom]

I'd like a few more details, please.

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.

[Kadin2048]

I find it a little hard to get worked up over this. I don't find the idea of watermarking particularly offensive, as long as it's not done in such a way as to degrade the content (which all "analog preservable" watermarking does), and it's not part of a DRM scheme (e.g. 'no copy' flag). Watermarking that only identifies a user and can be used to track down someone sharing files after the fact ... I can live with that.

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.

I Don't Care

[Otter Escaping North]

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:Apple, Sony, Microsoft..

[vertinox]

I dunno... Finger printing a media file ain't even close to a root kit on the evil scale.

my only question

[Lord Ender]

Does the license under which I "buy" these DRM-free songs permit me to strip this personally-identifiable information from the songs?

Re:Apple, Sony, Microsoft..

[no_opinion]

Why should I be outraged? Why do I care if my name is in a file that I purchased? Please explain.

The disadvantage of non free software.

[twitter]

[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

[dmeranda]

The concept of using a watermarking technique is itself much better than any sort of DRM. But if the watermark is not correctly cryptographically tied into the song, then it is probably quite easy to forge watermarks. What this means is that it would be possible to still distribute thse songs (illegally) but have it appear as if somebody else did it. This is probably worse than having no watermark at all.

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.

What Privacy?

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

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:What Privacy?

[qortra]

How do you know your privacy isn't violated? Whimsically tagging all your stuff with your ID could absolutely invade your privacy. Consider that sometimes people's stuff gets stolen (or otherwise illicitly obtained). Suppose that you, Bill McGonigle, are downloading pornographic AACs as you so often do. Also suppose that a flash drive or CD (or some other non-owner-identifiable media) of yours containing those AACs is stolen. Now, somebody out there knows what you're listening to (the REALLY nasty stuff), and can identify you and possibly blackmail you with your conservative friends.

BTW, I neither know nor care whether this slashdot user does porn; that was for example only.

Re:What Privacy?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Hey, where do you get AAC Porn?!!! :)

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.

Re:What Privacy?

[tm2b]

How do you know your privacy isn't violated? Whimsically tagging all your stuff with your ID could absolutely invade your privacy. Consider that sometimes people's stuff gets stolen

Uh. That's ... a pretty far reach and you need much longer arms.

It's like saying it's violating your privacy to have your name on your credit cards, because your wallet might be stolen.

Lame acid test

[DogDude]

You're just regurgitating the age-old "Why should I worry about this draconian law? I'm not a criminal." argument. Buying a music file means that you buy a music file. Not a music file with extra unwanted information that might violate my privacy.

I certainly won't do business with Apple is any way, shape, or form.

Re:Lame acid test

[Trebonius]

How does this information violate your privacy? They're giving YOUR information to YOU.

Are you saying you can't be trusted with your own name and email address?

Re:Lame acid test

[WhiteWolf666]

I suppose you don't buy software, then.

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:Just like a used car

[chiefnewo]

Well if you buy a car that has had microdots sprayed on it, then there is writing on your car. It is of course a lot smaller than 4 point.

You can't trust it and never could.

[twitter]

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.

Watermarks.

[twitter]

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!

[Rebelgecko]

This isn't really anything new. ALL music bought from the iTMS contains this information. I would be more surprised if they DIDN'T include it with DRM-free music.

Mod me up please!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obvious what Apple is doing in slow increments.

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:Mod me up please!!

[stuboogie]

"For example, there is no crappy MS "activation" crap with OS X. I could use my OS X install DVD's and install OS X on any number of Macs, no questions asked, and most importantly, no crappy "activation"."

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!!

[mrchaotica]

First off, EFI is a replacement for an ancient BIOS that most x86/x64 machines still slug along with. Since Apple could start with a clean slate, why not adopt the modern firmware for a mainboard over something filled with 20 years of legacy Apple didn't need?

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.

Also, the Macs currently shipping lack the TPM chip needed to implement Trusted Computing.

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:Mod me up please!!

[deesine]

"You have to look at the reason why each company chooses to implement DRM or any other form of IP control."

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.

Re:Just like a used car

[timmarhy]

stop just a minute and ask yourself honestly - would you defend this if it was MS? no? didn't think so. that does for the rest of you.

embed not full name but transaction id

[Anonymous Coward]

i wouldn't really like all my purchases (i'm talking about real things bought at supermarkets) be stamped with my full name and ssn. i'd bet you wouldn't either.

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you referring to the software or the user being smart?
I don't believe I've encountered either.
Just hypothetically speaking.

Re:Just like a used car

[The Warlock]

When number 2 is that distant, it's a big deal. It's like saying that the number 3 desktop operating system is open source, so what's the big deal?