So, Apple releases Itunes 7.2, complete with the ability to download DRM-free, high-quality MP3s. However, these MP3s contain all sorts of personal information in the metadata, thus allowing tracking of who possesses the files. The solution? Privatunes, a program provided by a French company that erases the personal information from the metadata.
The best part? How the French justify the protection of privacy. I love it:
5 reasons to erase private information from my legally acquired iTunes Plus library:
1. Am I still a child who needs his pencilcase and schoolbag tagged with my name?
2. I bought the damn tune, but someday I may want to sell it (hey, how is it more stupid that selling old CDs ?).
3. I just have a thing for privacy. Is it dirty?
4. How the heck do I know it's not gonna be shared on P2P networks by my 6 year old step sister???
5. I thought good customer-seller relationship ment something like... how do they say, "trust' ?
- Log in to post comments
Chris are you on a Mac?
Uh oh. Can you tell? I am. Macs are like a religion; I fear being outed as a hypocrite! Are you going to recommend Faith Converter?
Why yes I was. How did you know?
Presumably you also don't write your name in books, or put address tags on your luggage. (And you do know that unless you encrypt your email, it is sent in the clear, right?)
Since only you have the right to use the music you purchase, why would anyone else see this information?
Since only you have the right to use the music you purchase, why would anyone else see this information?
Because there are back channel parasites embedded in (some of) the players?
The music industry managed to survive not knowing which albums I owned before this.
Since only you have the right to use the music you purchase, why would anyone else see this information?
Well, I dunno about the US, but in Europe I'm pretty sure you have a right to resell. Any license which claims to abrogate that is invalid. Your premise is false.
And even if there isn't good legal protection for the right of resale, there should be. But then over 90% of my music collection is on second-hand vinyl, so I would say that...
And this doesn't stop that at all (which means it's a great improvement over DRM systems, which do). Do you typically sell things to people who don't have any contact information for you? How do you get paid?
Internet users regularly give out name and email information in the clear all the time (literally every time you send an email, unless your email system is encrypted end-to-end). I really don't see why having that info in files that will (and legally should) rarely appear in public on the Internet is somehow worse.
Internet users regularly give out name and email information in the clear all the time (literally every time you send an email, unless your email system is encrypted end-to-end). I really don't see why having that info in files that will (and legally should) rarely appear in public on the Internet is somehow worse.
That's not the same thing. When you send and email to someone knowing about the sender is a pretty important part of the whole idea of 2 way communication. When I sell, lets say a book to buyer A I don't write my name into it before handing it over.
People get paid all the time having exactly zero idea who the buyer is. When I go to buy something and pay in cash the seller has no idea who I am. That doesn't affect the transaction.
You're missing the point -- normal email traffic is not encrypted, so with a little technical savvy anyone, not just the recipient, can read your email and have your email address. I don't see people complaining about this to email client vendors, however. And keep in mind that "a little technical savvy" is also what someone would need to read your email address from a purchased iTunes file -- it's not like it's readable from within iTunes.
How are you going to sell a digital file for cash? Are you going to meet people in alleys and exchange burned CD?
This is all pretty silly. There are plenty of privacy concerns on the Internet that are far more serious than this.
No I'm not and I am fully aware of how email works. In turn I believe you are missing the point. When I send my friend an email, I'd like them to know who sent it to them and visa versa when they reply to me. It is completely necesary to send some identifier across the internet whether you encrypt it or not. Like I said before, in communication one of the core parts is knowing who you are communicating with. If it is something i don't want read by someone "with a little technical savvy" then I'll take measures, but it is necessary to identify yourself.
When making a transaction you need to be able to communicate with that person but that is a seperate issue than having the item inscribed with your information. It is 100% unecessary to have your indentifying infomation as part of the item you are selling. Once you make the transaction, cash or not the fact that this was Rev. BigDumbChimp's has zero bearing from then on out. The identity is only necessary (and not always) in the transaction.
Yes I think it is a more than likely a small issue in personal privacy. But just because this may be a small issue in privacy on the internet we should ignore it?
It's one more place that your identifying information is stored that it need not be.
The societal pendulum seems to be swinging from the left to the right. As we move away from 'sex, drugs, rock and roll' we move back into a McCarthy-like state of FUD and rights restrictions. The government says I can't get on a plane without removing my shoes, photography of public places is restricted, the CIA and FBI get more rights to tap into our private lives without proper oversight, and the list goes on.
Private corporations are gaining (or often just taking) ground in their right to know more about me and, more importantly, manage my commercial life. DRM is just one of the methods businesses use to control my interaction with them. They stuff code into my music and videos that attempt to prevent me from proper access to fair use.
I really, as one person, can't fight the FAA, CIA, or FBI. You can believe I DO reject DRM - it's within my ability to be active in my rejection of something I find distasteful. You want to keep me from making copies for my own use? Screw you, I'm not going to buy your product. You want to embed information in my downloads that could be used to prosecute me if you decide I've somehow cheated? Keep your damn music. If you trust me, I will (and do) buy music. Hell, I buy multiple copies so I can share music with my friends and families. I WANT the companies and artists to make money. I don't want them poking their nose into my business.
Is this a small thing in the overall schema of things? You bet. But it's one of the few things I even have a shot at changing or doing something about. So I sit here on a lovely June morning, fair trade coffee in hand, writing this response on a system running Mandriva Linux listening to my MusicBox player as it pipes DRM free, CC licensed music from all over the world into my room.