Apple Criticized for Watermarking Music Files

Discussion in 'iPod' started by clevin, Jun 4, 2007.

  1. macrumors G3


    Aug 6, 2006
  2. macrumors 6502

    Apr 29, 2005
    Kenora, ON Canada
    Some people are never satisfied. I for one have no problem having my info on my own music. To each their own I guess.
  3. macrumors 68020


    Jan 30, 2006
    oh so apple isn't giving out free piracy licenses to users who buy unprotected itunes music, common people were you expecting to be-able to buy it and share the song with 1000's of your "friends" without apple being able to trace you.
  4. macrumors 68040


    Jun 27, 2006
    Rhode Island
    People should just be greatful that iTunes is even selling songs without DRM. Geez.
  5. macrumors 65816


    Jun 3, 2007
    For once, I wholeheartedly disagree with the EFF. I think it's a very irresponsible move on their part to criticize Apple for simply including this info in DRM-free songs sold through the iTMS. Name and AppleID are by no means "secure info" that would pose a security risk to users. This new way of giving consumers DRM-free music but making some attempt to keep that same music out of the hands of pirates is the direction that I think DRM needs to go in. Less restriction of fair use rights and more protection against pirating, like what DRM ideally was supposed to do in the first place.

  6. macrumors 604

    Sep 23, 2003
    Boo freaking hoo.

    People need to quit whining about this, they took away the DRM, you really expect them to sell files that could just be shared endlessly without any way to track the source?
  7. macrumors G5


    Nov 25, 2005
    I followed the link. What the are writing is blatantly untrue: There is no evidence whatsoever that any user data is encrypted in any files without DRM downloaded from iTunes. None whatsoever.

    The source for all this nonsense is a web-log by a Ms. Sadun, who by her own statement gives up any pretence of journalistic integrity when she writes "First, this is not journalism. It's an informal web log."
  8. Moderator


    Staff Member

    Dec 7, 2002
    Whakatane, New Zealand
    I don't have a problem with this.

    1. They've been doing it since 2003.
    2. It's not hidden, it's clearly shown in the Get Info window.
    3. It's easily removable.
    4. If you get into legal trouble, you can use it as a stop-gap to prove that you bought the music legally while you dig out the receipts.
  9. TBi
    macrumors 68030


    Jul 26, 2005
    Actually a good point that i don't think many people have thought of!
  10. macrumors Core

    Jun 16, 2004
    The BBC were reporting this last week.
    I love the 2nd paragraph of the article:

    Well, the answer is to not share the files:rolleyes:
  11. macrumors 68000


    Jun 6, 2003
    District of Columbia
    I really doubt this has anything to do with piracy. From what I've read, these tags are easily changed. You could blank yours out or even put somebody else's name in there.

    As for the comment that losing an ipod full of music puts your name and e-mail at risk...are your name and e-mail supposed to be confidential? If that's the case, your entire address book is 10x more private. And I hope you didn't engrave your name and phone number on the back. Geeeeezzz. I like the EFF some times but they're turning into PETA -- a good cause taken way way too far.

    I can't imagine anybody who's paying $1.30 per song and then putting their music on a p2p. If you're the kind of person who pays for music, you're probably not the kind of person who trades music illegally.
  12. macrumors regular

    Jun 30, 2006
    Where do you think all of the music on p2p networks comes from, then? :rolleyes:
    Some evil interweb pirate plunders a music shop at night, rips his loot on his pirate ship, shares it with his evil pirate friends and ends the day with a bottle of rum? :p
    Most of the music on the p2p is ripped from legally bought CDs. Some people just don't mind sharing their legally bought music.

    I'm not too concerned about the whole thing. As long as they make sure that the people who are going to get their accounts banned (and maybe a lawsuit) thanks to this are 100% quilty. We don't need another RIAA-style "quilty until proven innocent" lawsuit-frenzy.

Share This Page