Slashdot Mirror
Apple's DRM Whack-a-Mole
Mateo_LeFou writes "Gulf News has a nice piece exposing the last couple generations of Apple's DRM strategy (you didn't really think they were abandoning DRM, did you?). Article focuses on how quickly the tactics are worked around, and how nasty the latest one is: purchased iTunes now have your personal data in them. Author suspects that this is to prevent you uploading them to a network."
and don't forget that you can just right click the non-DRM file now and convert to another format that DOES NOT have your user information embedded in it. it's a very simple, fast process for the paranoid.
Remove said personal information from the ID3 equivalent before uploading said file. Or is this information in some weird watermarking system I don't know about?
No. There is no weird watermarking system (though some people do suspect Apple of using hidden watermarks or steganography).
The information is stored in international standard MPEG-4 "atoms". In fact, they're even preexisting atoms for the purpose of storing name and email address. They're not secret, and not hidden.
If people are hell bent on uploading their files after they've purchased them, there's a number of ways the identifying information can be removed.
Plenty of people around who say, "But what if I then change the name and email to that of my most hated enemy and upload those??" though. Yeah. Okay.
1. The convert to MP3 menu does not work for these tracks.
2. They're more expensive
3. You can't hear the difference, only 1 in 10 could and it was statistical noise.
4. You can fit fewer tracks on a player because they bigger.
5. Apple are playing a game here.
I'm in favour of watermarking tracks with the sale ID, but Apple looks to be playing a game here, I still can't sign up to iTunes and get music for my MP3 players at the same prices as iPod users.
Have the people expressing shock and outrage never used iTunes, or what? Seriously, the purchaser info is RIGHT THERE in the same tab in the "Get Info" window that displays the track length, play count, file format, bitrate, and other data that's clearly, readily, deliberately accessible to users, and IT HAS BEEN EVER SINCE THE STORE OPENED IN 2003.
It's not a watermark (there may be a watermark as well, but no one has found one yet). A watermark is something embedded in the actual data, changing it in an identifiable way. The tracks from the iTunes store simply encode the name and email address of the buyer, and the time of purchase in the standard metadata tags. This is fairly trivial to remove, if you want to bother. It's like a receipt; it allows you to prove that you purchased the track if you need to, but doesn't do anything more.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
NEWS FLASH! Adobe Hides Customer Information!
From the article:
While many people believe that Adobe products are DRM-free, did you know that they, in fact, have a "poison tip?"
I know this is
One, it wasn't added, it had been there before.
Two, it's not a watermark, it's some embedded text.
Three, the text is even embedded in plain text format.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
A mystery? This has been going on since day one, and has never been a mystery. And even if it is a "mystery" on the non-DRM files, it was never a mystery on the DRM files, was never hidden, and was never secret. This has been known, never obfuscated, and obvious to anyone who clicked "Get Info" on anything purchased from the iTunes Store, ever.
/sarcasm
EXACTLY.
This is about as 'evil' as the time I bought a book on special order. The staff had put a paper insert inside the front cover with my name and phonenumber, presumably so that they knew who had ordered it. But they didn't tell me!! And it was personally identifying!!... why if I had started committing crimes with that book the police would have had my name and number!! I'm never buying a book from that company again!
My favorite quote of all this was from an EFF attorney; to paraphrase: if someone steals your iPod, the thief would have the name and email address of the rightful owner!
Heaven help the poor sap if someone were to steal his cellphone. or his wallet. or his briefcase. or his laptop.
Yours was the only post this thread needed. And first post too! If I had mod points I would mod you up.
/. editors, sometimes no news is better than a random rant from a clueless person.
Oh, and one more thing... Please
-- Cheers!
It's not a watermark (there may be a watermark as well, but no one has found one yet).
t eganography-in-itunes-plus-songs/
5 &postcount=123
Actually, people already have found that Apple isn't using a watermark or steganography technique, either:
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/06/01/apple-using-s
The file differences are why some originally thought that Apple might be using steganography. It turns out, though, that the AAC data is 100% identical and that the differences were a result in different metadata (modification dates) in the files:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=369662
So, Apple is indeed not using steganography or other hidden watermarking on the files.
Got me curious, too. Here are some possibilities. Cheers...
One interesting side effect of that information: In the first few versions of PlayFair the authors of the program made sure to leave your contact information in the file after it was decrypted, just to drive home the point that it wasn't about piracy. However, Apple changed iTunes such that if it saw that information on an unencrypted file, it would reject the file and the PlayFair guys were forced to strip it out.
I read the internet for the articles.
Actually, it's only the process of "sharing" that exposes you to legal action (at least here in the US). Taking a copy of a file off any kind of feed is generally protected under the Fair Use exception to copyright law. However, if you've configured your P2P client to allow *other* people to make a copy of that same file from your copy, you're "distributing" that file to thousands of others, and that's actionable.
And you're being a smart-arse. And you're wrong.
File-sharing *isn't* illegal, or a tort, or any other legal infraction; file-sharing copyrighted files that you don't own the copyright for, and haven't been granted a waiver to share, is a legal infraction and the copyright-holder(s) can sue you for recompense.
Ruddy precocious kids and their ruddy big mouths.
But let's put this in perspective: when ITunes first launched, you could authorize 5 computers to play their DRM protected files. Then Apple unilaterally changed this to only 3 authorized computers.
If anything's put into perspective by that part, it's your comment. The limit was originally 3, but it was later on raised to 5, which is also the current limit for DRM'd iTunes content. Please check your facts.Sig links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogout?re turnto=Have_a_nice_day
Fortunately TinyUrl doesn't redirect transparently anymore (and Firefox shows the non-obfuscated URL on the TinyUrl page...).
But yeah, dick move.