It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reportedly, every DRM-free iTunes download will contain your personal information

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

“Apple's iTunes Plus files are DRM-free, but sharing the files on P2P networks may be an extremely bad idea,” r2k writes. Pointing out to a CNet report, the user notes that “The account information and email address of the iTunes account holder is hidden inside each and every DRM-free download.” He went on to check whether or not it was true, and found that he couldn't access the information using an ID3 tag editor. However, “Using Notepad I found my email address stored inside the audio file itself,” he says.

Softpedia.com

What Apple is doing is publicly saying that they are removing DRM (Digitial Rights Management-copy protect-) from their Itunes downloads.

What they did not say is they are putting the users personal info on every download.

What this is is a back-door DRM.

Now, Apple will be looking at every p2p site with it's stuff and looking for the personal information.
From there to RIAA Nazi's they will go.

Right off the bat, i am thinking hackers getting music from other peoples computers and posting it.

Shame on Apple for being so scummy.

Let no apple user EVER talk about M$.pfff




posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
What Apple is doing is publicly saying that they are removing DRM (Digitial Rights Management-copy protect-) from their Itunes downloads.

What they did not say is they are putting the users personal info on every download.

What this is is a back-door DRM.

Now, Apple will be looking at every p2p site with it's stuff and looking for the personal information.
From there to RIAA Nazi's they will go.

Right off the bat, i am thinking hackers getting music from other peoples computers and posting it.

Shame on Apple for being so scummy.

Let no apple user EVER talk about M$.pfff


The info has been in Itunes files for a while now, its in the protected files as well and has been in all of the files for regular Itunes protected AAC files and Itunes Plus unprotected AAC files.

Why would a hacker get music from others computers and post it. The people who brought the files could do the same thing and its more likely they would send a file to a few people they know and those people spreading it to others than hackers doing it.

Amazon does something similar the but its not personally info they change the sound directly within the files and if you were to analyze it would be different than other files.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by jatsc]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Anything that can be digitally tagged can be digitally untagged, so in the big picture of things it won't make one tiny bit of diference. There is no way to deal with file sharing short of cutting down the internet or changing the entire culture of the world not to accept it (which would require 7 billion complete morons to achieve).

I personally believe that if people abandon the IP (Intelectual Property) model and let ideas go free we will have a more prosperous world. Ownership of intangibles like ideas is a dumb system, that is killing creativity and just making the rich richer and the poor buried under crap quick buck clone media.

Many people realise this, but they are labeled pirates and criminals, tagged with negative memes so people have an instant emotional reaction to them and don't think about what the hell they are really doing and how they are slowing down the development of manking by stopping the free spreading of information, for which we have a technological infrastructure all ready to go (and in some cases going already).

Go figure.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian

I personally believe that if people abandon the IP (Intelectual Property) model and let ideas go free we will have a more prosperous world. Ownership of intangibles like ideas is a dumb system, that is killing creativity and just making the rich richer and the poor buried under crap quick buck clone media.



So your saying people shouldnt get paid for the music, movies, books they create basically, What about documents you create on a computer they were created as some intangible but can become something tangible just like everything else, software, recipes, art, internet, websites, domain names, online banking, your credit card number etc.

All would be intangible in electronic formats no matter how you spin; so your bank account, medical perscription, everything on your computer, etc is free to the public



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Yeah. Companies will really want to invest millions into software then!



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Yes, in many cases revenue streams will be terminated. But don't think that the world would stop and we would have hundreds of starving artists, writers and programmers. Things would still get done, just under different economic models. Artists might actually have to work for a living, not receive money for something they did decades ago. People who love the creative process will do it just for the satisfaction. Not only that but collage media would not have legal impediment, so we could have degrees of creativity beyond the original creative process, without the selfishness of the individual castrating the group effort.

Yes, it's a new paradigm, but I don't really like the current one, which I think is not one of possibility but of limitation. This is much the same logic I have with money, money is not here to allow us to do things, but to trap us into ways of doing some things.

I understand the other side of the debate though, and am aware that lifting IP, while in my mind making the whole system better, would indeed make the lives of a lot of people harder, at least in the short term till the system resets. Generosity is hard to get into, but easy to live with



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Yeah. Companies will really want to invest millions into software then!


Hardware companies would still do it to allow people access to their products, software would not cease to exist. And open source models for everything else would still exist. Technical assistance would still exist, with people specialized in providing and setting up the most efficient software solutions. And money would tend to stay more in local markets, making crisis resistant economies. At least in theory...

The irony of software piracy is that more people probably make a decent living off it than those that work in the traditional sector, at least in nations tolerant of it. It democratizes the distribution of wealth. I see this as a positive. Having a system in place to make billionaires makes little sense to me.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by Zepherian]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian

Hardware companies would still do it to allow people access to their products, software would not cease to exist. And open source models for everything else would still exist. Technical assistance would still exist, with people specialized in providing and setting up the most efficient software solutions. And money would tend to stay more in local markets, making crisis resistant economies. At least in theory...

The irony of software piracy is that more people probably make a decent living off it than those that work in the traditional sector, at least in nations tolerant of it. It democratizes the distribution of wealth. I see this as a positive. Having a system in place to make billionaires makes little sense to me.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by Zepherian]


So who would really create the software if it was free, even open source software is not free you just have the ability to get the source code. If everything was made free billions of people worldwide would lose jobs.

People that design software, create music, create movies, write books, create TV shows, make furniture, work in book, music, food, software stores would all lose jobs.

People that grow, process, cook, most foods would be gone since most foods are processed with special equipment to keep fresh, to be able to consume, to cook (stove, microwave, oven, refrigerators, pasteurization for dairy products)

What would make a company want to do business if everything was free, you can guarantee that the quality would go down if there is no gain for making whatever product.






My I ask what is your profession because it would suffer to some degree some how either directly or indirectly and how do propose the people fired get by since making basically everything free who would survive besides the people that already have wealth.


To me your idea is not realistic and everybody poor and rich would disagree with it and it sounds like a precursor to project blue beam.


There have always been rich and always poor any change you make wont be for the good it will just make things worst no matter what your intentions are.

You tell everybody everything is free what creates desire to do anything
Nobody will do anything and thus eventually all supplies will wear out

[edit on 14-1-2009 by jatsc]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Yes, you may ask what is my profession. But sorry, I won't respond. This is not about me, it's about ideas.

And I'm not talking about everything(tm), I'm talking about IP, intelectual property, which is a system where a few people own ideas that are used by millions. Software is not a good, it's information. The goods are the hardware. Software only has economic value in a false scarcity economy, which is the paradigm we live under, because in an open economy the instant transmission of information brings the cost as close to zero as to make no diference.

Yes, the economy would reset and jobs would dissapear. But look at the news, that is happening regardless because of financial manipulation. Some people would lose their jobs, but current people who do not have opportunity to work because of the artificial scarcity economy would have opportunities. Software would always be developed under open source models, because it takes few people to divulge to millions and a lot of people do it out of intelectual curiosity. Plus software would become more modular, as the lack of IP would allow people to collage operating systems from components freely available. There could still be some degree of IP for embedded components on the hardware itself, which would not fall under the free information model.

It's a better system, but the transition from one, the artificial scarcity IP model, to another, free information model, is indeed hard. What would we lose? Centralization of wealth and possibly celebrity culture. I could live with that.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jatsc
...If everything was made free billions of people worldwide would lose jobs.
...

I swear, it's comments like this that make me think every single person should be sterilized at birth, and you can only breed if you show a grasp of basic logic.

Let's follow your line of logic to it's conclusion. If everything was free, billions WOULD INDEED lose their jobs. But what would they need them for, since EVERYTHING IS FREE?


Edit to add: The original length of copyright was 17 years. The law as it is written now adds HUNDREDS of years to that length. See a problem with that?


[edit on 15-1-2009 by sir_chancealot]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by jatsc
...If everything was made free billions of people worldwide would lose jobs.
...

I swear, it's comments like this that make me think every single person should be sterilized at birth, and you can only breed if you show a grasp of basic logic.

Let's follow your line of logic to it's conclusion. If everything was free, billions WOULD INDEED lose their jobs. But what would they need them for, since EVERYTHING IS FREE?


Edit to add: The original length of copyright was 17 years. The law as it is written now adds HUNDREDS of years to that length. See a problem with that?


[edit on 15-1-2009 by sir_chancealot]


Excuse me what in the world

"I swear, it's comments like this that make me think every single person should be sterilized at birth, and you can only breed if you show a grasp of basic logic." you reasoning is flawed everybody has said something that didnt make sense before, would you sterilized your self or your family members If they did if yes then that's fine if not STFU


If everything is free why would people make anything, think about that. If I use to make lets say furniture why would I continue if it was free how does that help me. And this is no way everything would be free no matter what excuse you give your paying for it in someway have it be by helping the other person, holding a door, saying something nice when you don't have to, even saying bless you after someone sneezes your doing something for the other person also no one does anything just because they want to they do it because of the expected return they will get.




I see no problem with a copyright for however long, I don't care if it's for a million years as long as the relative to the person whom created it controls it.

What is so wrong with a copyright, please explain?

If a copyright should be only 17 years how long should a dead to a house, land, property last ?

What about secret recipes

If your the person or a descendant of the person who created said content you can have it forever for all I care. If it has changed hands to people that had nothing to do with its creation that's when I see a problem.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by jatsc]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Don't you dare compare IP to possession of physical property and associated rights, there is no possible equivalence there.

Anyone who defends IP has to be, at some fundamental level, masochistic, unless of course he actually benefits from some sort of patent ownership, which is unlikely, being as the processes of aquiring them are designed to muscle out the everyman and favour the elitist.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join