June 1, 2007 6:15 PM PDT
Apple criticized for embedding names, e-mails in songs
- Related Stories
-
Will music industry dance again to Apple's tune?
May 31, 2007 -
Apple, Amazon may hold future of DRM-free music
May 17, 2007 -
Music executives judge Jobs, lament losses
February 27, 2007 -
Apple's Jobs calls for DRM-free music
February 6, 2007
It used to be that music fans believed cryptic messages about Satan or the death of a band member were hidden within rock albums.
Nowadays, the secrets buried in digital music are way too easy to find, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The consumer watchdog group, which focuses on the Web, is taking issue with Apple's practice of embedding customer information within iTunes music.
Apple includes customer names and e-mail addresses within song files purchased from iTunes, according to Fred von Lohmann, an EFF attorney. Several tech blogs wrote about the embedded information this week after Apple launched iTunes Plus, a service that features music stripped of controversial copy-protection software.
Von Lohmann pointed out that data could easily be compromised if an iPod is lost or stolen.
"It's not as bad as losing a credit card number," von Lohmann said, "but it's still information that people wouldn't want floating around out there--especially without them knowing about it."
Apple hasn't said why the company would leave customer information exposed. But some observers have speculated that Apple is adding watermarks to music files. Watermarking describes the practice of inserting identifying information into digital files so they can be tracked. Privacy groups frown on such practices, but von Lohmann doubts that these were Apple's intentions.
Mike Goodman, a Yankee Group Research analyst, argued that watermarking is "certainly better than digital rights management.
"Watermarking does not treat the consumer like a criminal," Goodman said. "DRM is also restrictive, telling you how many times you can play a song or which device it can be played on. Watermarking works on the assumption that a consumer is innocent but provides the industry an opportunity to catch someone that breaks the law."
Ars Technica and Tuaw earlier reported on the personal information within iTunes' music.
See more CNET content tagged:
Apple Computer,
Apple iTunes,
personal information,
digital-rights management,
practice
You got to be kidding.
Is Fred/EFF so naive? Oh right, they have their own agenda.
some encrypted info in it that can identify you - a bit...
Big fkin' deal.
You also have your details in your address book file on your
computer & in the CV you wrote in Word. The cookies saved by
your browser have your usernames & password in them. The
countless emails you have backed up all have intimate details
about your life.
Since it would be illegal to share/sell the music file you own, you
really have no problem do you? I mean, you wouldn't put your
browsers cookies on bittorrent would you?
Everyone has moaned that Apple's DRM is a bad thing & ranting
"I will never buy iTunes music until they remove the DRM!"
OK, so now they remove it & people still need to complain about
it - "you have to pay 20p! outrageous! It's only 256 bit, i wanted
512 bit! Ripoff!"
It seems that the same people were saying "I will never buy a
Mac until it can run Windows & has a 2 button mouse" - OK, so
now it does (& has) they have to find another stupid reason to
complain.
Give me a break you moaning b'stards. This a great moment in
the history of online music & your getting a great deal. It's
exactly what we've asking for - hurray!
Stop complaining about a trivial stuff & enjoy your DRM free
music.
So, what was the problem with the new files?
There is absolutely no reason for this, therefore there is no reason it should exist.
supporters have made for the LAST FIVE YEARS, legions upon
legions of Mac Haters have said "Ohhh!!! It's SOOOO HARD to re-rip
a file that WE HATE APPLE for forcing us into it!
Everyone and their mother has cried and screamed for DRM Free Music, so that you could play "Your Music" on any device you want, whenever you wanted...well now you have it. So what if Apple embeds some watermark in it? If you are not sharing the files you have nothing to worry about. If you are really paranoid convert them to another format, or burn them to a CD an rerip them.
This criticism is just silly, we finally get what we want, and just cause they stuck our name on our file people are getting their panties in a bunch?
You don't like it, buy a Zune!
Where are the music files that contain nothing more then music.
There is no reason for this, nor any valid excuse.
noone but the purchaser has that information. Oh no, my own
name and email on my computer, what a horrible thing. The only
people that care about this is people who want to illegally share
these files.
This information is in my local telephone book for goodness sake.
Let's not sue every last person on Earth over rubbish like this.
It is amazing how few people grasp legitimate privacy and security issues.
If you're not illegally sharing your files with others, this information would not be "floating around out there". If I buy tracks on iTunes and play them only on devices which I own then no one else is ever going to see my name and email address in them. I think it's perfectly legitimate to put this in as a deterrent to illegal sharing in a way which in no way whatsoever affects legal fair use by the purchaser.
Lets see how much these anti-whiner whiners whine when their machines get hacked and their music files that pointlessly and stupidly contain private information gets spread around and not only do you get an avalanche of spam, ans also, the RIAA comes knocking on your door with a $10000 lawsuit against you.
Lets see how little you care, when people embed your name and email in files not even yours and the same things happen.
Seriously, there needs to be a battery of tests required before you are allowed to operate a computer.
forum comments ever! It's rare this day and age to see an entire
thread of mostly-sensible responses.
To reiterate the points that have already been stated: the big
story here is that you can now download DRM-free music legally
and efficiently.
So they embed your name in a file you purchase? Big deal. DRM-
free music is about fair use, and fair use doesn't include
distributing your music to the general population.
As for "losing an iPod" - I'm sure most iPods are full of personal
information such as name, etc. Having the users name
embedded in the audio files is trivial at best.
Quit whining and enjoy what you now have: a legal means to
acquire DRM-free music!
you're getting hysterical.
At 1st, I thought it was funny, but I'm becoming a little concerned
for your mental health.
Back away from the forums for a day ot two, take a deep breath,
buy a Zune (where I'm sure you'll find True Happiness), and check
in with us later.
Hopefully they will correct this oversight and we'll all blissfully forget these issues.
rationally (or frankly doesn't care). If you don't give away the music,
then your privacy has not been invaded as no one will ever see your
info. If you give away the music, then you have committed a crime,
and you have voluntarily waved your privacy rights. DRM-free
doesn't mean responsibility free.
about this are the people who are breaking the law. It seems a very
reasonable trade-off in my mind for enjoying the ability purchase
DRM-free music. I wish the EFF and others would stop hiding
behidn the "privacy" issue in an effort to defend illegal filesharing.
It's getting old.
Now imagine if the dealer had put all your personal information inside the trunk and had never told you that they did this on all their cars they sold. You *thought* it was all secure, but now you learn that the dealer has now delivered your information to those who want to do you harm.
That is simply irresponsible by the dealer. The fact that they never told you this until it was too late is even more so.
one of the Watermarked songs . . . then uses a P2P Website to
"share" it. Your name & email Watermark could end up in the hands
of hundreds (thousands?) of file sharing users.
That scenario makes me uneasy.
mean?
You have to take some personal responsibility in having it. Create a guest account that anyone can use but is so completely restricted that it can't view any files other than what is necessary to conduct whatever business they need to.
Most people won't bother and it's those people that will have the toughest time in proving they are not in willful violation of any contract or law.
If you want to be lazy and not do that one simple thing, then you deserve to have your computer ransacked by your 'friend.'
That is one of dozens of realistic and probable scenarios that will happen because of the stupidity of Apple.
Should you be fined or go to jail for this? Hell no.
But your scenario for justifying your protest is invalid because it isn't legal to begin with.
They would have had they know about it.
Could have, should have, would have?
Can you really complain? This is so much better than having
someone tell you how you can use the music and how many
times you can play it. And given how much people "borrow"
music and how long they "borrow" it, can you blame them for
marking it in a way that ties it to the original owner?
It all comes down to this; copying music and giving it away is
stealing. Do you do your job for free? If you don't like the price
for what you are getting, don't buy any of it. The artists and
recording companies will lower the price to meet market
demand.
What a tired, unintelligent argument.
- Misleading! Old iTunes files have this too!!
-
by Dr Dude
June 2, 2007 8:31 AM PDT
- I also checked an older .m4p track that I bought from iTunes over a
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 110 Comments >>year ago. I opened it in TextEdit and my name and email is clearly
visible.
Old news, just tring to **** on Apple's parade.
Move along folks., nothing to see here.