Apple Hides Your Account Info in DRM-free Music

[bdb]

Interesting.

link

[zerock]

It was kinda obvious the atom would be there, no complains in that. Besides preventing p2p sharing, i dont think that's the only reason its there.

[Daveoc64]

It's always been there. I don't see why they wouldn't keep putting it in.

It's a deterrent for some people to stop them sharing.

I don't think they will spy on people like that article is hinting at.

[kornchild2002]

I too don't think they will spy on people, that borders the legality of online purchases (unless it is stated in Apple's EULA for iTunes which is too damned long to read). I am sure personal information is there to prevent people from illegally sharing their music over P2P or torrent clients.

[deathsolitude]

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

It's always been there. I don't see why they wouldn't keep putting it in.

It's a deterrent for some people to stop them sharing.

I don't think they will spy on people like that article is hinting at.

Ditto.

People who are complaining about it are just secretly whining about not being able to "share" their music with strangers on file sharing programs.

[Daveoc64]

I should clarify that I don't agree with:

"That said, 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." "

I have different named files on this computer - more than one person uses it. They can't monitor that sort of data.

[AngryCherub]

Initially, I thought, that's as it should be. But the more I consider it, I think it's kind of a pain in that I have to think about my music library now as a liability. For example, I have a copy of my whole library at work that I occasionally update with the new songs I've ripped or bought from home. In the past, I never had to worry about somebody taking them because they either did not have identifying info or they were unplayable m4p files. Now I am actually worried about all the people who have rights on my machine at work; what if they copied some of my music? Even if they didn't mean to share it, p2p programs usually make EVERYTHING available. I feel like in situations where I do not have total control over my machine it is no longer a good idea to be listening to my music. And that kind of sucks.

And should I now be paranoid about letting anyone use my computer? For example, when I go out of town, I usually leave my computer on for the pet-sitter who stays in my apartment so he can have Net access. Now I have to stop that? Or worry about blocking access to my music collection?

There are other implications beyond just one's own desire to share music.

[Code Monkey]

Originally Posted by AngryCherub

There are other implications beyond just one's own desire to share music.

True, but I give it less than a week before there'll be a drag'n'drop utility that will strip the atom with your identifying info out of the files. When it was possible to de-DRM m4p files (that you had a valid license for) with certain DCMA violating utilities, there was the option to strip the ID atom, so without any actual DRM, it should be cake for someone who knows what they're doing to write such a utility.

While I plan to support their choice to sell DRM free files, I won't be allowing them any chance to trace them on principle. They can embed my personal info in such files when I have to present my driver's license to buy a CD (with enforced registration), otherwise it's just more needless stupidity on their parts.

[bdb]

Originally Posted by deathsolitude

People who are complaining about it are just secretly whining about not being able to "share" their music with strangers on file sharing programs.

...and if you don't like being watched 24 hours a day, you must be a criminal.

[Germansuplex]

I don't necessarily like it, but I totally understand it. Plus, it might not even be Apple's fault. It's probably at the demand of the record companies in order to let iTunes sell DRM-free music.

[jhollington]

Well, consider also that the embedding of the information may have more practical purposes... iTunes 7 introduced the new "transfer purchases" feature that allows you to "reverse-sync" content from your iPod back to your iTunes library, as long as it's going to a computer that is also authorized for the same account.

This feature doesn't seem to work for the non-DRM "iTunes Plus" tracks at this point, but we also have no way of knowing whether that's an oversight in iTunes 7.2 (ie, a bug), or intentional on Apple's part. Certainly if it was their intention to allow for this kind of reverse-sync, the identifying information would go a long way to enforcing the ability to only reverse-sync your music back to your own library, since it's extremely unlikely iTunes would ever offer this feature carte-blanche, any more than they do right now for your own "ripped" CDs.

I otherwise honestly have no opinion on this whatsoever. I'm not in the least bit surprised that the identifying info is still there, and at this point I don't particularly care. I'm the sort of person who regularly packet-sniffs what type of information is leaving my computer anyway, so you can bet that if there's any indication that Apple is using this information, both myself and 500 other "hackers" will find out about it, and you'll see it all over the news.

People who are paranoid about computers "phoning home" or companies like Apple and/or Microsoft tracking your activities have absolutely no idea how the Internet works, nor how many people there are out in the world who would just love to get their 15 minutes of fame by finding such a little hidden packet.... and no company will dare start transmitting significant encrypted payloads, since that in and of itself just increases the suspicion on other people's part.

[Hank Reardon]

Originally Posted by bdb

...and if you don't like being watched 24 hours a day, you must be a criminal.

Exactly. One needn't be up to no good to object to Big Brother keeping tabs. Just another reason to simply continue buying CD's and ripping them myself.

[tdefriez]

I download an item for a cost. The vendor embeds my details in the item. What are the issues?
- If I share the file the vendor can track me (not an issue unless I put the file on P2P server). No worries in my case as I believe (and life has taught me no such thing as a free lunch) and I don't hang out on such sites.
- Spammers can reverses hacks the content on P2P servers so I could end up with more spam (not an issue unless I put the file on P2P server). Again no worries in my case as same as one above
- Someone 'steals' the file and I can now prove it mine and recover (provided the supplier believes me and the e-mail is easy to find). I now am better protected if I can prove the file is stolen not 'donated'

So why should I worry as a legal user who refuses P2P approaches to getting music and only shares with his direct family?

PS: I have over 1000 CD's and several hundred LP's so I've always prefered to support art (I admit some commercial sources make more than their artist but..)

[HappyPills]

Originally Posted by bdb

...and if you don't like being watched 24 hours a day, you must be a criminal.

The day anyone in the government wants to watch me 24/7, they will get a 24/7 view of my naked.

[enjoilax]

Originally Posted by tdefriez

I download an item for a cost. The vendor embeds my details in the item. What are the issues?
- If I share the file the vendor can track me (not an issue unless I put the file on P2P server). No worries in my case as I believe (and life has taught me no such thing as a free lunch) and I don't hang out on such sites.
- Spammers can reverses hacks the content on P2P servers so I could end up with more spam (not an issue unless I put the file on P2P server). Again no worries in my case as same as one above
- Someone 'steals' the file and I can now prove it mine and recover (provided the supplier believes me and the e-mail is easy to find). I now am better protected if I can prove the file is stolen not 'donated'

So why should I worry as a legal user who refuses P2P approaches to getting music and only shares with his direct family?

PS: I have over 1000 CD's and several hundred LP's so I've always prefered to support art (I admit some commercial sources make more than their artist but..)

One flaw: no one will ever 'steal' it as you have to make it available for someone to take it.