Decius wrote:

Such is the situation with Apple's new DRM-free music: songs sold without DRM still have a user's full name and account e-mail embedded in them

My mind sees a parallel in technique between this and the "lets purge Myspace of child sex offenders" thing. If someone is stupid enough to be a convicted child sex offender and registers at a social networking site with their real name, location, sex and age, they deserve to get purged. If someone is stupid enough to buy music from iTunes and not spoof this embedded contact info before they share it, they deserve any sort of repercussions that could from from later being identified.

None of this would hold water in court I'm afraid. Much too easy to spoof so I doubt anyone will get popped by the RIAA because of this. I think the theory postulated in the article is correct: This will be a way of examining that casual piracy effect, possibly a back channel way of examing social networks of music tastes.

Decius wrote:

Such is the situation with Apple's new DRM-free music: songs sold without DRM still have a user's full name and account e-mail embedded in them

I'm having trouble conjuring up the requisite level of outrage for this one. For years we've been asking for non-DRM audio so we could stop being treated like criminals and prove that we're not a bunch of thieves.

I don't really care if my name and email are in these tracks because I'm not planning to share them about. There's no legitimate reason to do so, so the only legitimate concern here is that someone might acquire one illicitly and then have your contact info.

Anyone likely to be in a position to steal an mp4 from you probably either already knows that shit, or has compromised your computer, and has a lot more information at his fingertips than just your name and email.

This is much ado about nothing.

k wrote:

Decius wrote:

Such is the situation with Apple's new DRM-free music: songs sold without DRM still have a user's full name and account e-mail embedded in them

I'm having trouble conjuring up the requisite level of outrage for this one. For years we've been asking for non-DRM audio so we could stop being treated like criminals and prove that we're not a bunch of thieves.

I don't really care if my name and email are in these tracks because I'm not planning to share them about. There's no legitimate reason to do so, so the only legitimate concern here is that someone might acquire one illicitly and then have your contact info.

Anyone likely to be in a position to steal an mp4 from you probably either already knows that shit, or has compromised your computer, and has a lot more information at his fingertips than just your name and email.

This is much ado about nothing.

I don't agree. "As long as you don't do anything wrong there is no problem" is not an acceptable explanation for secret mass surveillance by a business. If they are going to encode your personal information into files they are selling you that they claim are unencumbered, they ought to tell you they are doing so. This shouldn't be some secret that gets rooted out by curious individuals. The point of advocating that they simply sell undrmed files is that people will purchase music because it is the most convenient method of obtaining it (as has always been the case), and that some incidental share is tolerable (as has always been the case). People who engage in such incidental sharing have a right to know that their personal information is attached to it.

Decius wrote:
I don't agree. "As long as you don't do anything wrong there is no problem" is not an acceptable explanation for secret mass surveillance by a business. If they are going to encode your personal information into files they are selling you that they claim are unencumbered, they ought to tell you they are doing so. This shouldn't be some secret that gets rooted out by curious individuals. The point of advocating that they simply sell undrmed files is that people will purchase music because it is the most convenient method of obtaining it (as has always been the case), and that some incidental share is tolerable (as has always been the case). People who engage in such incidental sharing have a right to know that their personal information is attached to it.

If it is shown that iTunes is reporting that information back to Apple when a track that you purchased is played on my computer, I'll join you in your disfavor.

If, on the other hand, this data is embedded to enable tracking on file sharing networks, and is not otherwise reported, I remain completely uninterested.

It's only surveillance if you're being surveilled, and it's only wrong when you aren't doing something you shouldn't be. I don't like cameras in public places because it's surveilling me doing things that are completely innocent. I reject the argument, in those cases, that if I'm doing nothing wrong, I have nothing to worry about. Identifying who's sharing these particular files on Bearshare is different. They've already engaged in something they should not be doing, so surveillance is acceptable.

The situation I noted first, in which iTunes is surreptitiously reporting back to Apple, is not acceptible. We'll see which it is and then I'll amend my attitude if necessary.

Of course, it's moot at this point. Since it has been identified, a tool will exist approximately right this instance to strip those data from the files, probably automatically.

k wrote:

Of course, it's moot at this point. Since it has been identified, a tool will exist approximately right this instance to strip those data from the files, probably automatically.

One that swaps in RIAA owner info might be funnier.

k wrote:
It's only surveillance if you're being surveilled, and it's only wrong when you aren't doing something you shouldn't be.

So, what you're saying is, that if I make a mix tape for my girlfriend, and then later on we break up, and then her new boyfriend shares her music collection on a file sharing network, that I've done something wrong, and I ought to have my personal name and email address in the hands of everyone who downloads a copy of those files, and I should not be informed that this is a risk?

Decius wrote:

k wrote:
It's only surveillance if you're being surveilled, and it's only wrong when you aren't doing something you shouldn't be.

So, what you're saying is, that if I make a mix tape for my girlfriend, and then later on we break up, and then her new boyfriend shares her music collection on a file sharing network, that I've done something wrong, and I ought to have my personal name and email address in the hands of everyone who downloads a copy of those files, and I should not be informed that this is a risk?

No, what I'm saying is that a collection of MP3's isn't a mix tape, and that you shouldn't treat them as such.

You seem primarily concerned about not being told by Apple about the tracks and I'm kind of sympathetic to that. Practically speaking all it would've meant is that people would've found a way to break it before it was even out, as opposed to within a couple of days.

Ultimately all of this just says to me that the music companies can't win. Digital pirates *will* find a way around anything. I've argued that before. I've said before that I think that leaves little hope for any system besides a compulsory licence scheme, which is effectively a tax, and one that people will largely rebel against.

So what's the fix?

It's possible the system will collapse, the big companies will crumble and there will be no more money out there for marketing and promotion of artists. The celebrity system will crash and musicians will pretty much all be relative unknowns, making money off the fickle tastes of people who buy their stuff online, see them live, etc. If no one's famous, then the desire to steal their music evaporates. I don't necessarily think this is a negative viewpoint.

Decius wrote:

k wrote:
It's only surveillance if you're being surveilled, and it's only wrong when you aren't doing something you shouldn't be.

So, what you're saying is, that if I make a mix tape for my girlfriend, and then later on we break up, and then her new boyfriend shares her music collection on a file sharing network, that I've done something wrong, and I ought to have my personal name and email address in the hands of everyone who downloads a copy of those files, and I should not be informed that this is a risk?

Yes, and what if someone erases the real data, puts your data in its place, and the puts the track on bearshare. Then you get in trouble when you had nothing to do with the sharing at all. It makes me uncomfortable.

Nanochick wrote:

Decius wrote:

k wrote:
It's only surveillance if you're being surveilled, and it's only wrong when you aren't doing something you shouldn't be.

So, what you're saying is, that if I make a mix tape for my girlfriend, and then later on we break up, and then her new boyfriend shares her music collection on a file sharing network, that I've done something wrong, and I ought to have my personal name and email address in the hands of everyone who downloads a copy of those files, and I should not be informed that this is a risk?

Yes, and what if someone erases the real data, puts your data in its place, and the puts the track on bearshare. Then you get in trouble when you had nothing to do with the sharing at all. It makes me uncomfortable.

They could do that right now, in the ID3 comments field.

"THIS MP3 RIPPED BY DJ McNUTSACK - McNUTZ@GMAIL.COM"

It's entirely about how it's used, in my opinion.