What is Digg?269 Comments
- dominic2, on 10/11/2007, -10/+162One more thing... the DRM'ed music has always had your info in it - the reason people had a problem with DRM was its restrictions not the fact it had your name in it. How is this even an issue?
- dominic2, on 10/11/2007, -9/+161It's not about sides. They are providing a service, you are choosing to use it. I see this DRM-free music as a big step forward which benefits the consumer (and they are marketing it as such to make money!). I even bought an EMI album I wanted today (my first album purchase even though I've been an iTunes user for many years ;-) ).
- nebunezzar, on 10/11/2007, -6/+139Honestly, i kinda like this form of "drm." I can use these tracks however I want, but it discourages giving out copies freely. If the laws would update to small time pirates instead of those who would make a business out of piracy I would be quite satisfied with this model indeed.
- Easty, on 10/11/2007, -11/+133Maybe, it's because, you know, you're not supposed to put them on file sharing networks.
- supernovasky, on 10/11/2007, -12/+128*twiddles thumbs for a moment*
*edits the file, changes the name to "Steve Jobs"*
*Whistles innocently*
This does nothing. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -13/+83scruffy...I love when people come up with these ridiculous unlikely scenarios just to try to come up with one never gonna happen example for when the DRM can be slightly inconvenient for people. Well, if you LOOSE your iPod, you are bound to have some inconvience.
You all bitched about how DRM was taking away your rights to use the music however youi wanted, and that you didn't wnat to give it away. Well, here you go. You can now use it however you want, you just can't give it away. Which you said you didn't want to do anyway. So stop bitching!
Anyone still bitching about it PROVES that you were lying when you said it was not about being able to get it free via P2P or torrents. - TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/11/2007, -4/+63Precisely. I'm sick to death of people bitching about this. Guess what? It's better than DRM (which had these tags in it anyway). Now you can put this music on any AAC compatible device and play it back, which is most portable music players these days. You can even transcode it all by yourself. Imagine that! But oh no, this is worse! Well, guess what? It's called compromise, you bitchy idiots. It's a very, very small price to pay for being able to use your music.
Now, answer this: How in the HELL does this affect you negatively, assuming you don't toss the song on P2P or another file sharing network? I'll tell you: IT DOESN'T. There's not even a principle here to stand by unless you're some kind of zealot who wants complete abolishment of copyright and you want to snub the law all by yourself. Yeah, everybody downloads music "illegally", but when you can get music legally with no restrictions on how you can use it for yourself, it makes that file sharing a little less attractive.
In short, shut the ***** up about this already. There is no downside as long as you aren't handing the music out. Stop trying to dig for reasons to bash Apple, because you have no ***** leg to stand on. - rhavenn, on 10/11/2007, -9/+66@scruffydan: Dude. Your name and email are for the most part public knowledge. I doubt anyone who is stealing iPods is interested in that information. As for when you lose it, most people won't even care.
- dominic2, on 10/11/2007, -6/+59@scruffydan: what happens when someone steals your wallet with your name and address in it? maybe the credit card companies should start blanking out the names
- itjamesd, on 10/11/2007, -9/+56To be perfectly honest this doesn't concern me one bit and I only see this worrying people who use itunes to put their music on bittorrent, which again is stupid because its already there.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -18/+65Why would anyone BUY music and then put it on an open P2P network? That's like buying a car and getting a key cut for everyone in your street so they can use it when they want.
Buy music and keep it to yourself. - Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -15/+59Don't steal music. Is that too much to ask? I have a ton of these DRM-free files already, and I think they're spectacular.
- sspooner, on 10/11/2007, -3/+34I'm absolutely happy with the new DRM-less move.
Personally I don't care what they embed into the file, since I'm the only person using the content and I don't intend to upload anything to a P2P.
For the most part people whining about this are the same people that want to upload all this content to P2P's without the contents creators permission.
You think it's just got a text based version of your name, you're wrong, it will have a digital watermark too, one that only apple can detect.
Change the name to Steve Jobs if you like, they'll still know which kid uploaded it. - digitalme, on 10/11/2007, -3/+32@wwwdot1jesdotus
However, then you wouldn't have the car. The issue here is people who give music to other people, and keep it for themselves as well. - Wivell, on 10/11/2007, -2/+31@wwwdot1jesdotus
That's a pretty awful way to look at it. When you give someone a purchased song, you're sure as hell keeping a copy for yourself. I've never given a car away, but I can't imagine that once I do, there's still gonna be a copy of it sitting in my driveway. - awhiteflame, on 10/11/2007, -4/+33publicOnline:
Quite right. But if you buy a book, you can't type up the book and start printing it by the thousands and handing it out or selling it. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -8/+32flag, you and the rest like you are just trying to find another reason to hate Apple. If there wasn't user info embedded in those files, you'd be bitching that they are AAC instead of MP3. If they were MP3 you'd be bitching that they are lossy compressed and not lossless. If they were in Apple Lossless you'd be bitching that they are not encoded with FLAC. And if they were FLAC files you'd be bitching that Apple are stopping you from playing them on your Zune.
No matter what Apple does, you will never be satisfied or give them credit. So you saying what you said is kinda' hypocritical. - Oakenshield, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26That information has been there since the inception of Fairplay 4 years ago.
Why the hubbub now? Apple never claimed to have removed it. Unless you were naive enough to not know it was there in the first place, WTF?
Don't like it? Don't buy music from iTunes. That was hard. - Peralton, on 10/11/2007, -5/+25Every magazine I subscribe to has my name and address on it. Damn them!
My credit cards have my name, signature AND credit card number on it! It even has the three digit security code on the back. Oh no!
My car's VIN can be tracked back to me through the DMV! Big brother!
I don't have any problem with a track having my info on it. What I want is to be able to move that track to different devices in my house/car/computers/MP3 players/etc without a hassle.
The one flip-side that I can see is that someone that wants to pirate tracks can EASILY remove that info, or change it to the George Lucas or someone else. As a legal identifier, I'd say it's weak and not the point of its inclusion, but I'm sure the RIAA will accuse someone based on that and then get smacked when it turns out that George never bought that track and the IP of the bittorrent info doesn't come from the same country. It's just one cog in a machine.
I am definitely not one of those "If you have nothing to fear, then it's ok" people. I am a strong supporter of many civil liberties, but this is a non-issue in my estimation. I updated the five tracks that I had from itunes to the DRM-free tracks and they have exactly the same info as the DRM tracks I previously owned. - KibibyteBrain, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20For reasons stated here and many others, I don't think ones information appearing in an iTunes file is best evidence in court for use in any case. Its just too easy to spoof and as far as I know iTunes does not send songs encrypted etc, so it could be captured through packet monitoring, and in the worst case that it IS your file, it in no way demonstrates that you were the only who was involved in the act of distributing it. I think this is a tactic like Apple's "don't steal OSX" text file to guilt people into not breaking the law more than anything.
- gimpbully, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18erm, you all realize that they delivered just what they promised, right? I can now take an mp4 downloaded directly from the itunes store and use it on my sony player... that's all they promised.
- Ireland, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17I love hearing my favorite band saying my name in the middle of a song nayway.
- rhavenn, on 10/11/2007, -6/+21Get off your high horse. Apple has been putting this info into the file for 4 years. Previously, it was difficult to share the music since it had DRM all over it. Now, suddenly people are worried about this info? The ONLY reason people are worried about this info is if they throw it up on P2P networks, since it easy to make copies of the file now.
Seriously people, buy the music, be happy you can make copies for yourself on different mediums or don't buy it at all.
As someone else said, music is a luxury. You don't need it to live and if you need it that bad then listen to the radio or internet streams. - tmanstark, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19Yep, if they just have username and nothing else, it's fine. Apple or any other music store already has your download history so that isn't new.
- joshpar, on 10/11/2007, -22/+36buying (or having) music isn't a right. If you are on $100 a month, then don't spend it on music. That doesn't justiy stealing it.
Music is a luxury. In it's current form, it is a product. Don't steal. - SilverBlade2k, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16Why the hell are you guys complaining. Everyone wanted DRM-free tracks, Apple delivered, and now you guys are complaining about it? This is meant to NOT put onto P2P networks but to still give the ability to the users to play in whichever freaking player they have. Seriously, its bitch, bitch, bitch with some people, can never make them happy even if they are given everything they want.
- FatBird19, on 10/11/2007, -6/+19What the heck are people complaining about!?
DRM-free iTunes was NOT Apple's way of saying, "Ok, kids. Pull out your CD-R spindle and line all your friends up at the computer! It's free music, bitches!!"
..duh - DBNKR, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Yeah, and youd still be able to use it yourself while others are driving it...
- welk, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15The RIAA is always in SEE! PIRACY! mode. Duh.
- Myonosken, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14Sure, send it to a mate. But make sure you have deleted your copy the whole time he has it so that the book analogy works.
- execute85, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9None of these new mediums have the same fidelity of my original wax cylinders.
- mattjumbo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12You guys are completely right. This is the worse debate ever for me. The RIAA sucks...who can like a group that sues 14 year olds? OTOH, the crazy ass Cory Doctorow crowd is just as nuts! I've said from the get-go that *most* anti-DRM people were just pissed off because they want a consequence-free way to steal as much music as they want with no consequences.
Of course the cover story is always "No, no! I just want to be able to use my music the way I want to...on whatever device, on whatever streaming gadet and Apple is unfairly locking me to iTunes!!"
There is not, and never was, any reasonable argument there. Frankly the standard Fairplay DRM setup is pretty much fine unless your goal is to put your ***** on Kazaa and let people steal it. With iTunes plus you can play it on *any* device that supports AAC, stream it, and even give copies to a few friends as long as they aren't ***** and drop it on a P2P network. Are the anti-RIAA nutballs happy? No, because all they want to do is steal as much digital content as they can.
But, of course, that is all they ever wanted to do. - MacPrince, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12@scruffydan:
Daniel Moutal
4217 xxxxx Dr.
xxxxx, xxxxxxxxx
Canada
thesloth2001ca@xxxx.com
scruffydan.com@xxxx.com
Wow...that was an exhausting 3 minutes' work.
(Yes, I self-censored much of his address and the domains of his email addresses. Just want him to know that I've got the information.) - Technopundit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6If you people don't stop steling music, pretty soon there won't be any left. Then what? What will Winnie the Pooh dance to?
You better cut it out or I'm tellin' MOM! - scabbers, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6"The RIAA will be in SEE! PIRACY! mode"
Seriously, so ***** what? They're in SEE! PIRACY! mode 100% of the time anyway so who cares? - eihwaz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@judicata
Yea, because... you know... it's full of people waiting out there trying to steal my music. Oh come on, be serious.
And guess what, if they steal your wallet (hey since they're already stealing your iPod, why not your cash?) they'll have your full ID, address, driving license...
I understand privacy is a very important issue, but this is going way too far. - RedHerringHack, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9I think the DRM less product is a fantastic idea. I just can't decide what to buy first.
Please STFU about your name and email address being in the file. Don't share your files. Whiney little bitches (thieves). - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Ahhhh...nothing like a Saturday evening on Digg in another Apple bash and forth. :)
- strictlybogart, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7i dunno why joshpar is getting dug down when he's correct. having music is a luxury not a right. if you're living off a $100 a week, you're hopefully not paying for that internet connection (luxury). if you want music so bad, get a radio.
- FatBird19, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7When you buy TANGIBLE items, there is no need to ascribe the individual owner's name to it because a tangible item cannot be freely copied and distributed without regard for it's owners or copyright laws.
....however, looking at my neighbor's Toyota Prius, I do wish this was a possibility. - arbulus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6You also have the fact that stealing does not equal copyright infringement. The big companies want everyone to believe that sharing music is stealing and copyright infringement. But if you really examine what stealing and infringement means, you realize the fuzzy place that the RIAA has put itself in:
Examples:
Stealing:
I walk into Wal-Mart and stick a CD under my jacket and walk out without paying.
Copyright infringement:
I take a song that someone else wrote and perform it or record it and say that it's mine and that i wrote it.
Neither scenario applies to music sharing. No one has taken something that doesn't belong to them without permission, and no one has claimed authorship of music that isn't theirs. Sharing is not stealing and sharing is not copyright infringement. - danakin, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10How would this story's tone be different if this was something like "Microsoft embeds user data in Zune marketplace songs"?
- danakin, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR RAGE!
- sych0, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Its called accountability people. Deal with it.
- superkendall, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4This doesn't stop you from doing anything you like with the information - including putting it on P2P. That might bring reprisials, but it might not - but it's not LIMITING your actions the way DRM does.
Conseqneces are not in themselves limitations. - zwei, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6omg ...names on our music?
My frakkin name is engraved on my iPod.
What was I THINKING :O - c0r3file, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9
There's an elephant in the room, and no one wants to talk about it. It is this: there's almost no music out there worth stealing. Look at the 'new talent' record labels are pushing on us. Britney Spears? American Idol rejects? Good grief people they're even letting Paris Hilton make music. THIS is what they are so desperate to protect.
Do yourselves a favor and head down to the local hangout and check out some live music instead. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6From the TOS:
(xii) iTunes Plus Products do not contain security technology that limits your usage of such Products, and Usage Rules (iii) – (vi) do not apply to iTunes Plus Products. You may copy, store and burn iTunes Plus Products as reasonably necessary for personal, noncommercial use.
The "as reasonably necessary" is a bit vague but one can imagine that it could be ok to share with some friends, but not upload it to P2P networks.
And for all those people complaining that it has your name on it, so does your credit card. And hell, your drivers license has tons more info than just your name. - AzraelRose, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6If someone steals your credit card and buys a bunch of subscriptions to porn sites and you don't report it as stolen, the courts are gonna believe you just don't want to pay for your amputee Nazi porn.
If your DRM free ***** gets stolen, Tell Apple via e-mail, keep a record and you should be sorted. Not to mention that you can remove your name/other details form the files.
If you do sell a CD, what happens if you suddenly realise you forgot to take the "property of" sticker off?
Finally, WTF? "Forced speech"? No-one will ever know you bought that Aqua album unless you tell them (or it gets "stolen"), why do you care that those same no-ones will also know your name? - macslut, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Wow, hdtvdust, you really are an ass. At SXSW, someone broke into my hotel and stole some hard drives along with other equipment. I did in fact file a police report, but no, I don't expect much to come from it.
Why is this hard to believe, do you *really* think there's not a market for stolen computers (which, you know contain hard drives), or stolen iPods (again, some of 'em have hard drives), or hard drives themselves (especially when attached to other equipment they're stealing)?
All it takes is a ass clown such as yourself at the RIAA to start harassing victims of hardware theft to make it worthwhile to strip the metadata from all our files even when we have no intention to share them.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 262 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is