What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
95 Comments
- mattmcm, on 10/11/2007, -17/+155Hear, hear. Now that the DRM's gone, people just want another excuse to bitch at Apple. It's a non-issue, get over it. The only people that should worry are those who distribute their music via P2P networks, and if you're going to do that, what's the point of even buying it in the first place?
- vvargoal, on 10/11/2007, -8/+66This is a brilliant move on apple's part. Give the people what they want, the ability to use the music as they please, and still be able to sue the hell out of anyone who distributes the music illegally. It's the best of both worlds.
- xoineg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+30Everyone should be thanking apple for fighting to help the consumer not the RIAA, instead of bitching about the file information. This has been in there since the beginning.
- djSyndrome, on 10/11/2007, -3/+28@vvargoal: except Apple hasn't sued anyone for distributing music. That's the RIAA.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+27It's better to replace the name with Steve Jobs and the email steve@mac.com
- jimbojones1977, on 10/11/2007, -2/+25from Lifehacker, on this very topic:
"In other news, items that are sent to you via the postal service have metadata which can pinpoint your very home!"
Where's the outrage about that? The privacy argument is *****. - chrisgeleven, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26Never saw the problem with this. I can easily see the need to tag which files you bought and with what account (I have two iTunes Store accounts). It just makes sense to tag the file with this info.
Besides, the only time where having this info is a problem is if your files are shared onto P2P. Not a big deal to me since I *gasp* won't share the files on P2P.
The argument about what happens if your ipod or computer stolen is junk too. If my computer is stolen, I have a lot worse things to worry about (such as e-mails with account #'s, passwords, etc.). Most thieves won't give a damn about the music files (after all, almost all music is already on P2P networks anyways). If my iPod is stolen, the thief is most likely just going to connect the iPod to their computer (erasing the songs on it) or selling it to someone that will erase the songs on it during the first sync.
The people crying foul are those who think all music should be free and shared (and stolen). Simple as that. - chris9902, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22They've done it for years. It's how they caught the BTK killer. (no joke)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader#Arrest - rspeed, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22@ wageslaven
What the ***** planet do you live on where metadata is DRM? - Otto, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20Microsoft *does* do it. Ever bought a DRM protected WMA file of any kind? It's definitely tied to your system somehow....
- CraigJ, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20I'm sick of all the whiny little bitches on this issue. It has your name and you e-mail address in the file. It is embedded in the ACC file on your iPod. so if someone stole your iPod they would need to extract the music (iTunes will not do this) which isn't all that hard, but beyond most (i.e. non tech) people's capabilities, then you have to edit the file to extract the name and the e-mail address. who cares? It's not like they have your address or SSN or Credit card number. Really, if this bothers you, you are way too sensitive or are an apple hater or just have no life.
- tempusrob, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17Uh, many *are already* screaming violations of privacy. And they'd be wrong in either case.
- totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16"If Microsoft did it everyone would be screaming violation of privacy."
Nice to see MS supporters can whine just as loudly as Apple supporters :p - MasteRR, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15Watermarking isn't DRM. You can still play the files on any system or player capable of playing AAC files, watermarked or not.
There is no privacy issue. It is against the EULA and copyright law to redistribute these files. The only way anyone would see this info is if you are knowingly spreading these files. AKA you are the one that is giving away your personal info, not Apple. And if you say "well someone hacked my computer and stole my music files and posted them on Kazaa, not me" then you have much more to worry about than your email address.
And I hate Apple, yet I defend them... - superpixel, on 10/11/2007, -5/+18george, that may be, but at the end of the day the argument is still the same: there is no privacy issue with this sort of marking
- kiddailey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Uh no, we wouldn't. There is no privacy issue here regardless of which company we're talking about. How does putting your name into a purchased digital file that is not supposed to be distributed in public constitute a privacy issue? It doesn't.
- superkendall, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17"Leave your ipod unattended, your PC unattended, your box gets compromised or any other access to your ACC files, and someone has the start of a confidence scam against you.
They now know your full and correct name (presumably the same one as on your credit card) and they know the full and correct email address for your account. The same account where he may find your credit card number."
Don't you think if someone had access to your PC unattended, any data leaks are about 1000000x more likley to occur from things like contacts or emails or othe documents stored on said computer? The chance that such data will be obtained from a SONG FILE is nil because in reality there are scores of other files where this data is easily acquired from.
You just despise Apple and are looking for any excuse to complain, no matter how contrived. - chrisgeleven, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16This isn't a watermark (a watermark by definition would be hard if not impossible to remove from the file without damaging it...people have already been able to scrub this meta data from iTunes Plus files and still play the file fine). This is just meta data attached to a file, that has always been on iTunes purchased files.
- hansahni, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16Alright we get it already! Reasonable people are happy with the iTunes plus no-DRM solution. How many more stories and posts about this do we need to digg up?
The only people that are concerned about this are the people that haven't bought music since Napster, anyway. - Bluejaye, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13People are just asking for MORE DRM if they are foolish enough to "crack" their iTunes+ files and put them up to be pirated. Then they only have themselves to blame for ruining it for all of us.
- jimbojones1977, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13@wageslaven
If someone gets their hands on your computer, you've got a hell of a lot more to worry about than someone getting your email address out of your AAC files. Besides, how is it any different than them just opening up your email client and getting your name/email out of there? This is one of the dumbest arguments yet. I'd be more worried about someone getting more private information than that.
You're a dumbass. - Wyzard, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10wageslaven, no, watermarks are *not* DRM.
DRM is technology that prevents you from doing things with content that would otherwise be allowed under copyright law, such as making fair-use backups or excerpts, or playing your iTunes music on your Zune.
A watermark does not prevent you from doing anything. The files are unencrypted and can be transferred to, and played on, any AAC-capable player. - djSyndrome, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11@wageslaven: "Watermarking" < > DRM. Your privacy may be being violated, but your rights to copy the music to as many devices as you choose are not.
- cyfer2000, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10I signed my name on my LPs and CDs. I didn't realize I violated my privacy until last week.
- djSyndrome, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7@superkendall: agreed. The ugly girl behind the desk at my dentist's office has far more of my personal data than Apple ever will. I'll take my chances with having my e-mail on an .aac file.
- dorianh49, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8@ wageslaven: Can you please fix the grammar on that first point? It makes me want to cry.
- milkmage, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7you know.. it's really disappointing how some of you dumbass ***** think a watermark or email address in META information is the same as Digital Rights Management. taking to you wageslaven
you probably think the internet is a set of tubes. - dotorg, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Especially since half of diggers probably have their name written on their underpants by their mom.
;) - meshman, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11Oh just download the crack that blanks out the data fields.
- aristotle0dude, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Some people seem to be under the impression that their 99 cents CAD or 1.40 CAD gives them distribution rights to the song they purchased online. You are not given the copyright of the song when you buy a copy of it. All you are getting for you money is a copy of the song and a license to use i.
If you were given the distribution rights to the song, it would cost you an astronomical amount. - cyfer2000, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Didn't you read iTunes Store's Terms of Service 4 years ago before you click the "Agree"?
- infobhan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Agreed, this is completely a non-issue. What are you trying to keep private? Your song selections if a thief happens to be interested in digging around the files and figuring out what you bought? Your e-mail address? Then use a free, non-essential email address as your iTunes account.
- Bluejaye, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6/----[ cyfer2000 ]
| I signed my name on my LPs and CDs. I didn't realize I violated
| my privacy until last week.
----
When I was a kid my very own Mother used to put my name on my coat, baseball glove, etc. The horrors of it. This one time when I was 7, my ball got stolen, and oh was I every worried some thief knew my name! - MariusVW, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I agree with this as well.
The problem with DRM was that you could not even use the music as intended and make backup copies and play it on other devices in your own home.
Removing DRM does not remove the ownership, and having my name on items I own is something that I actually like.
Besides, it's a text field that can just be wiped and spoofed, so nothing can be proven using it in court etc.
If you worry about privacy regarding music that should not leave your ownership in the first place, then rather go rip the stuff from a CD anyway (and you are probably doing stuff which is not covered by fair use (the original and RIAA meaning of it)) - BulkHedd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The argument about the iPod being stolen and your name and e-mail address being available to the thief is absurd. The iPod can carry store contacts and calendar information too. Should that be a privacy issue? What about cell phones and PDAs? They store far more personal data than an iTunes song.
What about a driver's license? It has your name, photo, and address? If your wallet gets stolen isn't that a privacy issue? Maybe a driver's license should just be blank. - codyfrisch, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Your privacy can only be violated if you put the files up on the internet for everyone to download. As long as you keep them under your "control" at all times, your private information is still private.
So if your privacy gets violated then its your own damn fault. Thank you, good day. - nanboya, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I don't get it; how is this any different than a serial number for a software product that is associated with a registered user name? Like it or not, if you put something out there for public consumption, it will be traceable...
- MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Checking...checking...nope. No name in my underpants, but I dugg you up anyway for the funniest original line I've read on Digg in a long time.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The amount of coverage this is getting is just ridiculous and considering how late this article is, I suspect this is little more than an attempt to drive traffic to someones blog. The comments form Cory Doctorow and Fred von Lohmann were nothing to get worked up about IMO.
Cory's comment on Boingboing just basicly repeated the EFF's post that there was an 360K of extra data in the DRM free tracks. Indeed the EFF's article only speculates that it might be watermarking of some kind. von Lohmann said "It's not as bad as losing a credit card number," von Lohmann said, "but it's still information that people wouldn't want floating around out there--especially without them knowing about it.", not exactly a scathing indictment of Apple is it.
quote from the article:
"So why haven't Cory and his fellow perpetual protesters spoken out against this egregious privacy flaw in the wider scope of computing?"
Apparently the author has read nothing else from the EFF or Cory Doctorow besides this.
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/31/eff_finds_huge_block.html
http://news.com.com/Apple+criticized+for+embedding+names%2C+e-mails+in+songs/2100-1027_3-6188337.html?tag=item
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070530-apple-hides-account-info-in-drm-free-music-too.html
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/05/30/tuaw-tip-dont-torrent-that-song/
This article is a gross over statement of criticism Apple received, so it's author has something to attack. Get over it already. - iburl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'm not going to get riled up about my email address being in my MP3 file as long as the criminal Bush regime and their enablers at the telephone companies are keeping permanent recordings of ALL of our electronic communications and sorting through them at will, without any oversight and outside the scope of the law. This is like being pissed off that you are missing Entertainment Tonight because of a nuclear war.
- simplejoe79, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Apple is doing good job.
- Krutch, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7I didn't read all the comments, so if this is repeated I am sorry.
when I got to the bookstore and bring it home to place on my shelf, I write my name on the inside with my address.
When I buy a new car I make sure my name is on the title with all my information.
When I buy DVD's, I make sure my identification is there as well.
I even put my name on my uniforms.
What makes my digital library any different? How is it an invasion of privacy in any form? My name on MY music. Music I bought.
Before you digg me down. I know people are crying over this because they want to be able to share their music over P2P networks without any worries about being sued. I just find it hard to believe that some people would actually call this a privacy violation. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The removal of DRM this year, amongst other things, means now is the first time iTunes is an option I'm considering.
I don't even have a massive problem with this (although it's not really "pleasant" as such), but I didn't use iTunes four years ago. Lots of people didn't.
That doesn't mean I/they should be banned from discussing it now, does it? - UbuntuX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I just love it! Now I can do a major social experiment and see where my songs end up? I wonder if you would be able to Google them? Kind of like putting a radio transmitter on a lemming to see the migrating paterns...
- mikepictor, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7@mattmcm (#7014576)
Don't distribute the music, and no one will get your name or email out of the metadata
non-issue - LeBain, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The claim here is amazing - it's OK if anyone can find your e-mail address because they've been able to do it for a few years now. That's like saying stealing is OK as long as you don't get caught. Or like saying murder is OK because the victim didn't report harrasment before she was killed.
- rspeed, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"And I hate Apple, yet I defend them"
There's an old saying that you'll hear from a lot of people: "Love the products, hate the company." - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@PJSPJS:
"The power of the Record Companies". If you're going to go all 'conspiracy theory', do it proper.
"...
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law which implements two 1996 WIPO treaties. It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as DRM) and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself. It also heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 8, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended title 17 of the U.S. Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of Online Providers from copyright infringement by their users.
..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA.
The activity is a crime because the government chose to make it a crime.
The result is that Digital Media is now very real property.
So I say make them pay property tax. - codyfrisch, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4What does it matter, unless you upload the files to the internet who is going to see that private information, except your private little self? if it gets stolen, you better make sure all your other private information is encrypted, including your address book with your on vcard in it with your address, phone numbers, etc. as well!
- grumpyrain, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If someone else steals your car and ram raids some jewellery shop, what happens to you? You report the vehicle as stolen and hopefully you remembered to renew your insurance last year. Are you charged with running the red light? Are you charged for the damage to the shop? Loss of stock? No. Society seems to have developed the idea that it is the person who committed the crime who should be charged, not the owner of the vehicle.
If someone else steals your iPod and uploads your mp3s onto [insert P2P network], what happens to you? Has the RIAA developed some place you can report your music collection as stolen? What if you throw away your old PC/Mac without running a 35 pass secure wipe? It is quite trivial to restore the entire drive in minutes if you have used a simple 'format'. What if no-one steals your iPod, what if you leave it on your desk at work and go to lunch, and your co-worker 'borrows' your library? You would be none the wiser. Ironically, DRM actually protected the user a bit in this regard, so I disagree with the article, the privacy issue was not as relevant. (And before anyone asks, I legally own every piece of music and every video in my collection.)
Does the RIAA need to prove in a court of law that you shared the file, or is having your information in some file from some P2P proof enough? Are we now guilty until proven innocent? -
Show 51 - 95 of 95 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