Ditto.Daveoc64 said: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.
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.AngryCherub said:There are other implications beyond just one's own desire to share music.
...and if you don't like being watched 24 hours a day, you must be a criminal.deathsolitude said:People who are complaining about it are just secretly whining about not being able to "share" their music with strangers on file sharing programs.
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.bdb said:...and if you don't like being watched 24 hours a day, you must be a criminal.
One flaw: no one will ever 'steal' it as you have to make it available for someone to take it.tdefriez said: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..)
Right, because absolutely no one has files on their work computer or a family computer where multiple people have access. Heck, for that matter, nobody has ever had their iPod stolen or otherwise lost.enjoilax said:One flaw: no one will ever 'steal' it as you have to make it available for someone to take it.
That's kind of the point. The RIAA has only actually *won* a very small number of cases regarding file sharing. However, they've had thousands and thousands pay them about $4,000-$5,000 a head solely because of intimidation. Just because the RIAA is mostly a paper tiger, either outright ignore their request or insist on taking them to court and the most likely result for you is... nothing at all, doesn't mean the potential risk to the end user isn't there.jhollington said:I'm not suggesting that the RIAA and its ilk wouldn't use that information to attempt to intimidate folks if a whole whack of music with their name on it showed upon a P2P site, but the grounds to actually make any kind of a real case over it is going to be pretty unlikely unless there are many other substantive grounds upon which to build a case.
atomicparsley trackname.m4a --manualAtomRemove "moov.udta.meta.ilst.apID" --manualAtomRemove "moov.udta.meta.ilst.purd" -W