Let’s Make Something Clear About iTunes Plus
There has been a lot of talk since Apple released their iTunes Plus service. Besides being DRM-free, the files were also marked with some personal details of the user. Even some Dutch blogs started talking about how Apple created a new kind of DRM for their DRM-free content. I got in a nice discussion with the writer of this article and I would like to make some things clear here:
- The “disturbing” information has always been in files you buy on iTunes. Therefore I believe it is not valid to demand the removal of this information from the plus version of the file and not the normal one as that would be putting the rights of one customer before the other.
- The info is not DRM. DRM stands for Digital Rights Management and is used to manage your rights, others and anyone have who might want to use the file. The info is not used for any management and is therefore more of a watermark. Watermarks are not DRM, end of story.
- As #2 states it is not DRM, it is again not valid to demand the removal of this info from the plus version and not the DRM version. Buying DRM free music does not grant you more privacy than others, that is just stupid.
Don’t misunderstand me, I have to agree that including this info in the files is silly as it is easy to manipulate and just stupid. Furthermore it is a bit misleading of Apple to not make it clear to everyone that this info is in the files.
Anonymous
June 4th, 2007Classic security runaround. You can eliminate the watermark, I bet, by transcoding across an analog carrier. Your copy won’t be as perfect as it was, but you can get very close, and you didn’t start with perfection either - just with a 256kbs AAC file.
Then there’s the additional option of buying the (watermark/personal info-free) CD and ripping that. All of those options are far more practical for launching a CD or song onto p2p networks.
Thus, this doesn’t stop the pros. It may stop Joe Q. random user from sharing his files, but contrast this to the security measures at your local clothing store: Those big bright ink badges that turn your clothing all yellow and blue are brightly coloured for a reason - active deterrent.
By not being very explicit, apple is basically setting up their random users for a big lawsuit. Apples are pretty much security leak free in practice (note those last two words) but some people are just clueless and turn on filesharing tools without realizing they are breaking a law.
That is a valid concern. Demanding that this information is removed from the AAC stream is probably unrealistic, but demanding that apple is a little more obvious about this is something different.
Be that as it may, your main point is valid: ITMS+ is DRM-free, meaning it gives you an mp3 that you can stuff on anything, from a zune to an iPod. Not that it allows you to buy an untraceable copy free to share on the web. I’d (much) rather live without all copyright compared to the tripe we have now, but that distinction must be made.
Now, how long until someone writes an obfuscator that eliminates any ability to trace the buyer of a song?
Cristiano Betta http://ibbydibby.com/
June 4th, 2007Actually the info is not that kind of watermark. You can remove the info just by editing the properties of the file in iTunes. It is just a metadata field. Any idiot can remove it, even my mom.
In other words, I can even share my files with others by changing the hidden info to someone elses name (Steve Jobs?).
Anonymous
June 5th, 2007Actually, no. If two different iTMS users buy the exact same iTMS+ file, strip the meta data in the exact same way, and compare whatever’s left, there are about 600-odd bytes still different. I forgot where I read this, but I did read that recently someplace.
The content and significance of those 600 bytes weren’t specified; a serious attempt at watermarking probably needs a lot more than a 600-something byte difference to withstand hacking attempts.
rzwitserloot http://reinier.zwitserloot.com/
June 5th, 2007Anonymous works? odd. That was me, anyway.
Cristiano Betta http://ibbydibby.com/
June 5th, 2007Yeah anonymous works. Have you been the Anonymous all the time lately?
rzwitserloot http://reinier.zwitserloot.com/
June 5th, 2007Could be. My mac’s in the mail (finally!) so me using the same browser to browse as to test aspects of tipit.to (which involves resetting cookies) should be over soonish.