Discussion in 'The VIP Lounge' started by LarryB, Jun 5, 2007.
Not surprisingly, this is being misrepresented on several fronts. 1) putting your user ID on the file when you download it is NOT DRM. Is it sneaky? Maybe, but it also falls into the category of, if you're not doing anything wrong (i.e. distributing the content) why do you care? 2) I've seen several sources report that songs you bought from ITMS ALREADY had your user ID tagged on them, before they removed the DRM so this may be a case of anti-RIAA groups making something of nothing.
Suffice to say that I find this particular comment extremely disturbing and that I vehemently disagree with it.
If the data is there than it can probably be altered, stolen, misused etc. And for those reasons this probably sucks for everybody. This is just my initial thought.
If I was a person who downloaded from share sites etc. why would I care? I'd most likely download songs other people bought and would have their personal info not mine.
I actually disagree with this theory as well but normally people talk about it in the sense of being spied on. No one is spying here. No one is going to see your name or files unless you put it out on P2P or something.
Or you have an iPod full of music that was stolen from you?
Just saying. I'm not sure what I feel about this particular issue. Very happy that it's DRM free though. This may be a privacy issue, but at least it isn't DRM.
Good point Chris. I guess the only relevant question then is, is this new or has Apple already been doing it with all ITMS music and people are just making a big deal now to take a shot at DRM-free music?
Again, if you're not doing anything illegal, why care? To say that I have grown calloused of DRM, DMCA, etc, etc is a gross understatement. I guess I may be unique in the fact that I used to be a passionate advocate of DRM-free and Fair Use, but now I really don't care.
That I don't know, hopefully someone else does. Personally, I'd prefer if my personal information wasn't in ANY music file, DRM or not. I don't really use iTunes (initially for the DRM, but more because I still would rather have the CD than pay the same amount from iTunes.)
For the reason above.
Imagine this scenario (not too far-fetched)
You buy a bunch of these new DRM free songs from iTunes which are all imbeded with your information (email address, etc.)
You put them all on your shiny new iPod.
Your iPod is stolen and the thief copies all the songs off, uploads them to his favorite P2P site.
Everyone who now downloads this music has YOUR information and all of these songs can be tracked back to you, the RIAA sues you for piracy and takes your first born son (which is their going rate, I think.)
Imagine this, I pull out the police report indicating the stolen property and I am clear and free. I also produce the part about the IP address being in Alaska while I'm in Texas. Under those circumstances I would be more than happy to go to court and kick their ass. Again, honost people doing honost things have very little to worry about.
Do people actually file police reports when they lose an Ipod to theft (assuming they didn't lose it by mistake)?
I agree with Dan.
From what I read about it, all tracks downloaded via iTunes have always had identifying data in them, so this is nothing new.
If they are smart they do. Reports of small and petty theft eventually help PD identify the possibilities of larger, organized rings.
If you think the RIAA will say "oh, ok, nevermind" then you're being naive. Go over to /. and read the discussions. There are several people countersuing the RIAA trying to recover legal fees due to long court battles after which the RIAA finally gave up the witch hunt.
Capitol vs. Foster
I take back everything I said. DRM-free with ID tags bad, bad, bad. LOL.
I suspect most people lose their IPods, rather than have them directly stolen from their possession, like in a mugging or robbery. How many of those people who lost their IPod do you think file a police report?
But even if they do have a police report, how much will it cost them in attorney fees to clear their names? More than one innocent person has had to sell their house or spend their life savings to pay for a lawyer after being wrongly accused. They may prove their innocence in the end, but at what cost? Keep in mind that in our system the loser does not pay. If you're proven innocent the government does not reimburse your attorney fees. Even in civil cases you may not receive attorney fees.
Something that disturbs me greatly is that a lot of people seem to becoming more accepting of the idea that the accused should be able or even be required to prove their innocence, rather than the accuser having to prove guilt. That is not how our system is intended to work, the burden of proof is supposed to be on the accuser, whether it's the district attorney or the RIAA.
Separate names with a comma.