Slashdot Log In
Privatunes Anonymizes iTunes Plus
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Jun 27, 2007 08:39 AM
from the i-don't-know-if-anonymizes-is-a-word dept.
from the i-don't-know-if-anonymizes-is-a-word dept.
njondet writes "French-law.net
reports that Ratatium.com, a French website specialized in technology news and software downloads, has just launched
Privatunes, a free software that anonymizes DRM-free files bought on iTunes Plus. Last month's revelations that the DRM-free files sold by EMI on iTunes Plus came with user's full name and account e-mail embedded in them had raised serious privacy concerns. Ratatium.com
explains (in French) that Privatunes is aimed at guaranteeing the privacy of users but also their rights as consumers to freely share and trade the songs they have purchased. However, the claim that this software is perfectly legal will surely be tested."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
A little self-important and misguided... (Score:5, Insightful)
5 reasons to erase private information from my legally acquired iTunes Plus library:
Yeah. A name and email address. On an electronic file that you purchased. In name and email address fields in the clear. How...wrong.
1. Am I still a child who needs his pencilcase and schoolbag tagged with my name?
Utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
2. I bought the damn tune, but someday I may want to sell it (hey, how is it more stupid that selling old CDs ?).
It's not "more stupid" than anything. And since Apple is the first entity that's even allowing this possibility at all with mainstream music from mainstream labels on any meaningful scale, I guess I must not recognize your gratitude.
3. I just have a thing for privacy. Is it dirty?
No, but it's dirty when you think everything is automatically an "invasion of privacy".
4. How the heck do I know it's not gonna be shared on P2P networks by my 6 year old step sister???
How do you know the reason the name and email address is there is for tracking file sharers? How do you even know that would stand up in court? Why does everyone assume that's the reason it's there? Has it occurred to you that this might have been a concession to the labels to make them "feel good", or any number of other reasons? Has it occurred to you that since name and email address have always been included in all purchases from the iTunes store that, uh, maybe nothing has changed?
What if the EU mandates a system for returns and refunds someday from the iTunes store? Wouldn't your account name and email be an easy way for normal individuals to return songs? And before anyone says, "Well, it should be encrypted, then," can you honestly look at me with a straight face and tell me you wouldn't be even more upset that Apple was including unknown personal information, encrypted, in each song bought from iTunes? If it's there at all, it's actually preferable that it's plaintext, because then there are simple ways to remove it without anyone being able to claim that you're breaking some law for removing encrypted information or some other ridiculous thing.
"But it shouldn't be there in the first place."
I know, this is the part is a difficult situation since it is mandatory for all persons on earth to purchase from only the iTunes store. If only Apple didn't force you to buy no-DRM songs from iTunes.
Oh, wait...
5. I thought good customer-seller relationship ment something like... how do they say, "trust' ?
Why do you assume that an electronic item you purchased yourself from the iTunes store having your name and email address embedded in internationally standardized MPEG-4 atoms intended exactly for that purpose somehow equates to lack of "trust"? "Trust" to do what?
I thought the main argument against DRM was so that we could use our files anywhere we wished, on any device we wished. Now we can. Sure, it has your name and email address in it. It's not hidden. It's not a secret. It doesn't matter if most normal users don't realize this. It's still not hidden, nor is it a secret. Most "normal users" don't "realize" a lot of things.
And from the summary:
However, the claim that this software is perfectly legal will surely be tested.
Tested by whom or what? For what purpose?
The software is perfectly legal. Why is this even in doubt? It's a file with no DRM, and you're removing text that is IN THE CLEAR, IN PLAINTEXT in the file that YOU BOUGHT. Removing it by ANY MECHANISM is perfectly legal in any jurisdiction I can think of.
No DRM means just that: no DRM. No encryption. No reverse engineering. No DMCA provisions. Etc.
If you want to make an anonomyzing tool, great. But don't puff it up to be more than it is.
Again, my favorite quote that sums up the stupidity of the outrage over a name and email address being in a file you purchased, from a Gartner analyst:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
* I'm not trying to steal/share it, I just want to be in control of it.
I was quite happy to put my name in there if it's enough to keep the music producers happy.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re:don't bother (Score:2)
And, quite honestly, unless the intent is to track the propagation of the files across the internet and be able to identify the source of the propagation, there's no realy reason to include the information - especially in plaintext. My take is that if you care about it, you s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because US courts have ruled that a service provided for the purpose of breaking copyright is liable for civil damages (see Napster, et al). While anonymization services are theoretically not there to encourage copyright violation, it could be argued that this is exactly the purpose of this software -- a lot would fall to how the software is advertised.
As for this being illegal, note that copyright protection applies to media regardless of whether
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What Apple/RIAA et al intended by adding the user data to the media file is immaterial. What matters is the intent of the company that wrote the software to strip the data. If they intended to facilitate illegal d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Give me a break.
Napster facilitated infringement, because it built lists of files people had available for transfer and facilitated connections between users, and made them searchable. Napster HAD a substantial noninfringing use, and that's where intent came in; courts believed that Napster was intended to facilitate infringement.
This file stripping does not facilitate file trading. You can already trade the file just as easily without stripping atoms which
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But surely this software proves how easy it is to change such details anyway...there's no reasonable way you can use a plain text, easily changed header as evidence for any prosecution...otherwise I could load up a load of songs with people I don't like and stick them on P2P.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
there's no reasonable way you can use a plain text, easily changed header as evidence for any prosecution
Who said prosecutors are reasonable? It seems you are a little too idealistic. The attitude "justice will prevail" is a good one to have but fairly stupid to rely solely on that without protecting yourself.
According to your logic, we should just let the system take it's course. Eventually after we get sued for distributing copyrighted music, spend money on lawyers and miss work to fight a legal battle, justice will prevail.
Now who's being unreasonable?
Re:A little self-important and misguided... (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW...if you wish to strip said info for whatever reason, these are the atoms you need to target:
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That would kind of seem to go without having to be stated. If my bank updates their policy and mails me a copy my name and address are necessary parts of doing that. It seems silly to me that I might open their letter and find that in their policy they took the pains to point out that they might includ
Re:A little self-important and misguided... (Score:4, Insightful)
To quote your previous line - utterly irrelevant to the argument. WTF has gratitude to do with privacy here? FWIW I think this is one of the places were his list makes something of a point and by an interesting coincidence you're being disingenuous about it. Perchance it's more difficult to refute than the dumb arguments? [In more detail, in case you were actually honest about trying to refute the point, let's expand on it: second sale doctrine allows resale; DRM made the resale worthless, which is OK with SSD, but no-DRM changed that. Now, assuming I do resell - pennies for a dollar is good enough for some - I no longer have control over what the new owner does with the track. Assume they have the 6yr-old step-sister that puts it on p2p and lawsuit-happy RIAA finds it and sues me. Now, I might prevail if I get to prove that I no longer own the track, but that will be tedious at best. And since the case can be viewed as a honest one, I doubt I'd get them to pay attorney fees. So it makes sense to try and prevent such a development, don't you think? Here's 2 that says you would have had a better argument questioning the legality of selling the anonymized version of the file instead of the original.]
Well, you certainly look like you have an agenda here. While I don't agree with this argument from the "she did it, her guardian is responsible for not explaining things to her" perspective I don't see you making a valid argument either. Who cares what the 'official' reason is? could be "so that faerie pixies know where to come and make it sound better when you listen to the file" for all I care. If past behavior shows anything is that a system that can be used for a corporation's profit will be. Any argument that a RIAA lawyer can bring to court will be brought - why, look at what they used so far, something like "metadata says you purchased this song" is positively incriminating by comparison. And again, what changed is that a 'stolen' track now can be actually useful for whoever steals it without any reprocessing (which would have stripped most of metadata anyway) so the risk of your info making it on p2p is higher. And about standing up in court, you seem to conveniently forget that the likes of RIAA don't much care how valid their argument in court is if they can threaten you with an expensive lawsuit that in itself will make you settle. Please wake up to the 21st century paradigm shift in lawsuit strategy - you don't need a valid argument to win, only enough money compared to the other guy. Reminds me of the winning strategy for coin-flipping games, actually.
I won't repeat the argument for your 'rebuttal' to the Gartner analyst quote. You should have gotten the drill by now - and if not it would be pointless repetition anyway. What I would like is some link to back up your claim that no steganography is used - for a guy who revels in placing links all over his posts that one is conspicuously absent. Mind you, I'm not asserting it's untrue, but I will beg to be excused if I won't take only your word for it.
Parent
Re:A little self-important and misguided... (Score:4, Funny)
Wow. Just, wow. I don't even know how to respond to that.
You don't see the problem? Okay, let's think through a little scenario here.
Someone steals your iPod. Because of the owner tags, they now have your e-mail address and name. Using Google and Google Maps, they locate your home and plan on breaking in. However, since your last name is Schroeder, which sounds German, they will assume that as a German you are automatically dangerous, so they'll get some guns to shoot back in case you charge at them with a rifle. Now, there's the issue of the German Shepherd - it doesn't have the name for no reason; the assumption that an armed and dangerous German has an equally dangerous guard dog as well is not far-fetched. So they need some fast guns to keep the fast-moving combat-trained canine in check. However, in order to pay for the MAC-10s the gangsters have to indebt themselves to the local mob, which means that now they're desperate. It is worth it, of course, since someone like you who can afford to express his taste with an iPod will obviously have a home full of high-quality A/V equipment and various expensive pieces of art. On the other hand, someone with possessions as prized as yours will invest in state-of-the-art security, possibly including armed and trained security personnel. As some puny machine pistols won't help them in this case and it was you who started this arms race when you gave those overzealous rent-a-cops guns and let them play cowboy on your property it's time to bring out the big guns just to pay you a lesson. So they also go to the Russian mob and acquire some Soviet-era RPG-29s, AK-47s and a T-72 main battle tank, hoping they can breach your defenses before you get to launch that V2 your father hid in the back yard in the 1940s. Just in case, they will also try to bring a General Electric M134 Minigun.
What started as a simple iPod theft has escalated into a full-scale war just because Apple had to tag your music with your name and you think everything's handy-dandy? I wouldn't want to live in your neighbourhood - the smoking, charred remains of it.
Escalation: It's not just for privileges.
Parent
Unbelievable. (Score:4, Insightful)
So what's the privacy problem? It's like someone stealing my wallet. Hell yea that's a privacy concern! What's the solution? Someone steals my iPod and they'll be able to figure out my name?!? They'll also be able to figure out what my house, wife, car, and kid look like because of the pictures on the damn thing, and don't even get me going about documents I store on the damn thing...They'll also be able to figure out my Slashdot handle, because the damn thing has "Satanic Puppy" engraved on the back.
So do I actually care that my info is in the file header? Hell no! It's my goddamn file, it should have my goddamn name on it! And if I wanted to go breach some copyright, I'd at least have the stones to strip the info myself. How fricking lazy do you have to be?
When I wanted DRM-free music, I wanted it because I fricking hated not being able to listen to my damn music wherever the hell I wanted to without jumping through hoops. I've got that, and that's all I care about. Far as I'm concerned the service is fine (though a bit pricey).
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:5, Funny)
I have avoided that problem by engraving "Anonymous Coward" on mine.
Parent
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:4, Funny)
That's weird. I engraved 'niceone (992278)' on mine.
Parent
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My iPod has no identification markings... if I lose it, I write it off as a loss. It's an expensive habit, but I'm more paranoid than most. The only pictures I have on it are inside a knoppix encrypted disk. This is breakable with enough time (it's only AES-128) but I am comfortable that anyone stealing my iPod either doesn't have the knowledge/power to do this, or is already onto me for whatever I've done and I'm screwed anyway... so all you can see on my iPod at this point is an
Re: (Score:2)
This is breakable with enough time (it's only AES-128)
Ummm... While AES-128 is indeed breakable with "enough time", (as are all encryption schemes other than a one-time pad), I don't think you will be around long enough to really care. Even at 2^64 operations a second, It would still take an average of 2^63 seconds to crack, or about 200 billion years.
I would worry more about someone infecting your machine with a key-logger (hardware logger since you use Knoppix) or torturing you until you give it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, if they start sharing my music, I'd have a better chance of catching the bastard!
Re: (Score:2)
Blah blah paranoia.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the kind of reaction that will make the music industry reconsider this whole DRM-free thing, and certainly hurt other companies' moves in that direction. And it shows what's really behind a lot of that anti-DRM rhetoric.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's proof of purchase for future lossless upgrade (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's proof of purchase for future lossless upgr (Score:2)
If you use this app on your iTunes Plus tracks you will be buying lossless for full price like a newbie.
Can't you keep a non-modified copy for this purpose?
Re:It's proof of purchase for future lossless upgr (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It's proof of purchase for future lossless upgr (Score:2)
Re:It's proof of purchase for future lossless upgr (Score:2)
> tracks. It enables iTunes to tell that you bought the track from iTunes Store. If you use this app on your iTunes Plus tracks
> you will be buying lossless for full price like a newbie
Gee, if only there was some way of writing plaintext information to AAC atoms. Unfortunately, consumers don't have access to the supercomputer clusters Apple must use to write a few
France folks, FRANCE (Score:4, Informative)
* I Am Not A French Lawyer
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell did this get modded 'informative'? 'Interesting' or 'Under-rated' I could grudgingly admit that some people might find it, but 'informative'??
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely correct.
The Ratiatum explanation http://www.ratiatum.com/news5257_EXCLUSIF_Privatu n es_pour_supprimer_les_espions_d_iTunes_Plus.html [ratiatum.com] is more pertinent that those quotes from http://www.privatunes.com/ [privatunes.com] that Apple Fanboy DaveSchroeder quotes in his first post (though I admit that the Ratiatum text is still less than elegant).
Remembering that this discusses the case of a hypothetical French consumer, the most pertinent facts are:
Freely share? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, while this software may be considered legal, there is little reason to use it unless you are planning to share your music or are deathly afraid of someone stealing your iPod or computer.
Of course, if you are afraid of someone stealing your iPod, what security measures do you use against someone stealing your wallet? Are all your credit cards and your photo ID without your name?
Re: (Score:2)
Freely share downloaded music from iTunes? Did they abolish copyright law in France? I had no idea!
Well, seeing as the current law stems from an absinthe dream Victor Hugo had... On a more serious note, it's perfectly legal in most European countries to share music with a few friends, the exact number varies from country to country. Now, you mail a friend a copy of a song, he sends it on and suddenly the local version of the RIAA tears you a new, roomy, asshole. It's all fun and games until information gets on the loose, isn't it?
Where is the abuse? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blah blah blah. This shows you who is really in it because they hate the inconvenience of DRM, and who is just too stupid to figure out how to share music with easily cracked DRM on it.
Non-issues and real issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we please start complaining about privacy issues that actually matter, like the fact that iPhone users' only service option is the same monopoly that was and is spying on the majority of all of our Internet traffic, without a court order or Congressional oversight?
This is sure to get us somewhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Privatunes is aimed at guaranteeing the privacy of users but also their rights as consumers to freely share and trade the songs they have purchased.
Apple finally gives nerds what they've been shouting for--higher-quality DRM-free songs--and this is how the community responds? By anonymizing purchased music so people can pirate it? These guys are class-A asshats.
Last month's revelations that the DRM-free files on iTunes Plus came with user's full name and account e-mail embedded in them had raised serious privacy concerns.
How is someone supposed to steal the name and e-mail address from songs you aren't passing around to all of your buddies and the Internet? Oh, wait. Hasn't the Apple ID info been inside iTunes tracks since the beginning of the iTMS, anyway?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'll bite. Trading (copyrighted) movies, games, music etc is different from trading Pokemon and Pogs for the simple reason that Pokemon and Pogs are sold with the explicit intention that they be traded and spread across a wide audience. CDs, DVDs and games generally aren't.
Not to mention, since when did anyone you know "trade" MP3s (as in send someone a music file, then delete their copy)?
Point and laugh (Score:2)
...at whoever thinks this eliminates all traces of your identity from a file. Your info could be encoded 50 different ways in the file, and if this app only scrubs 49 of them before you send the file to your friends on BitTorrent -- and seriously, what other point is there to this? -- then you're still hosed.
So does the Audio:M4P::QuickTime perl module (Score:4, Informative)
I want a tool for EMBEDDING my identity into files (Score:4, Funny)
Do not rely on the current version!!! (Score:4, Informative)
There are some other differences between copies of a track purchased by different users, but they're only a byte or three here and there. Probably still worth blanking. vbindiff on *nix (or a similar hexdiff program for other platforms) will show you these fields.