Ars Technica – May 30, 2007:

With great power comes great responsibility, and apparently with DRM-free music comes files embedded with identifying information. 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, which means that dropping that new DRM-free song on your favorite P2P network could come back to bite you.

That said, it would be trivial for iTunes to report back to Apple, indicating that “Joe User” has M4As on this hard drive belonging to “Jane Userette,” or even “two other users.” This is not to say that Apple is going to get into the copyright enforcement business. What Apple and indeed the record labels want to watch closely is: will one user buy music for his five close friends? The entertainment industry is obsessed with the idea of “casual piracy,” or the occasional sharing of content between friends. I wouldn’t be surprised if some data was being analyzed in aggregate, although Apple’s current privacy policy does not appear to allow for this.



  1. Justsaying says:

    What happens when you combine two different DRM-free m4a files for the same song hash one bit each?
    Sorry **AA,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNcOlcTwnwg&NR

  2. Justsaying says:

    I tried to post a youtube link after the comma but it got filtered out. Search for “You are a pirate – Full version” at YouTube.

    [Just type a link in, don’t use HTML tags. – ed.]

  3. Mike says:

    The problem with DRM is the restrictions it imposes on the legitimate user. These song have no usage restrictions; this information is just there to help keep people honest. I don’t see the problem.

  4. Tim R says:

    remember tape decks? Those were the days. 🙂

  5. BubbaRay says:

    #1, Comment by Justsaying

    That’s another keyboard ruined from sputtering coffee! Good find! Yaarrgh! I wanna be a pirate!

  6. PBFT says:

    I don’t really have a problem with embedded data. It’s kind of like writing your name on your jacket. DRM is like buying a jacket that the store keeps and you just get to look at through the window and try on once in a while.

    The only difference is that if your jacket is stolen then the name could be used to return your property to you. In this case they are going to try and sue you for not keeping proper custody of your own property, like if your ipod is stolen.

  7. Jeanne says:

    This sounds like there is nothing there that a hex editor couldn’t fix. I wonder how long until someone writes a small program to strip out this info.

  8. MikeN says:

    Hey, I thought people were using DRM-free songs for their own personal use? That there’s nothing illegal going on? Why are people so obsessed about what is stored in a song download that noone else will see? Could it be that all these reasons given against DRM are just excuses and that people really just want to avoid paying for music?

  9. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #7 – It will take no time at all… Thanks to the magic of technology 🙂

    Ahhh… The pointless battle against piracy.

  10. James Hill says:

    #7, #9 – We had a discussion about this at work yesterday after hearing about Apple’s new tact (we’re calling it ‘DRM without DMR’), and we came to the following conclusion…

    Either Apple imbeded the bits in a way where it will be very hard to remove them, or Apple is doing this as a token move to the record industry based off of their anti-DRM stance.

    I’m guessing the later.

  11. Matthew says:

    In todays day and age, I would only be surprised if Apple didn’t do this.

  12. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #10 – Either Apple imbeded the bits in a way where it will be very hard to remove them, or Apple is doing this as a token move to the record industry based off of their anti-DRM stance.

    I’m guessing the later.

    Comment by James Hill — 6/1/2007 @ 7:24 am

    I’m guessing that you actually meant that latter, and I agree.

    My hidden point is that this is the sort or DRM I can live with. The DRM schemes that disable equipment, or block legit usage (like some CD copy protection schemes) are worth getting hot and bothered about.

    But this is beniegn and I can circumvent it… Not that I need to. I rip CDs that I buy to play on other devices and I don’t share them (other than to make mix-discs that I might give away as a gift now and then).

    Not that I really care if someone does share. That’s what sells concert tickets and concert tickets are what pays artists. I only care about paying artists. I could not care less about giant mainstream labels.

  13. soundwash says:

    i bet spam gods are licking their chops over the potential new email harvest.. :s

  14. Roc Rizzo says:

    Arrgh Mateys!
    We never cared for that blatherin’ DRM anyway.
    It just slows a good pirate down. Arrgh!
    Shiver me timbers, Avast! Lower the mainsail, we’re comin’ in a wee too fast.

  15. TJGeezer says:

    #1 – Justsaying – ARRRR. Thanks, matey!

    I don’t care if they track my DRM-free music. So long as I can play the music on any device I want, send music mixes to a CD, copy to an MP3 player, and so forth. I’m not a music distributor, just a consumer.

    #12 – OFTLO – you hit the nail on the head. I get CDs directly from artist sites when I can and do my best to avoid CDs from RIAA member labels.

  16. Jim says:

    will it be mp3 i wonder? what would happen if you loaded the mp3 into a sound editor, saved it as a wav, then re-mp3’d it… might loose slight quality, but no more embedded info…

  17. god says:

    You may as well crouch next to your computer with your shorts all bunched up over cookies. Of course, that’s why you’re crouched instead of sitting, relaxed, like the rest of us.

  18. tallwookie says:

    WHOA!!!

    buddy of mine has that “he’s watching you” pic as a huge poster at his house
    lol nice find!

  19. ZZ says:

    Your name and account number on the downloaded file? I thought all the major record company iTunes music files have had an embedded serial number since the beginning. Bah, now I need to back track where I got the info.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 3917 access attempts in the last 7 days.