Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Hides Account Info in DRM-Free Music

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the tabs-keeping-tabs dept.

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?'"

10 of 669 comments (clear)

  1. the acid test by crayz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:the acid test by needacoolnickname · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...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.
    2. Re:the acid test by Buelldozer · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. Re:the acid test by qortra · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.
    4. Re:the acid test by kebes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.)
  2. I don't have a problem with it by aunchaki · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  3. This is exactly what DRM should be. by casualsax3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's by aichpvee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    The Farewell Tour II
  5. Re:The advantage then of buying real CD's by McFadden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Mod me up please!! by stuboogie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.