Privatunes Anonymizes iTunes Plus

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."

Re:Unbelievable.

[UbuntuDupe]

My question is, why encode their name and all, like that? Why not put some random number in, and then have some table that only Apple has, that matches that number to their information? Or would that be just as bad from the privacy standpoint? "Hey, someone might steal my iPod, extract the random number from the file, break into Apple's database, look up my information, and then have all the information they need to use my now-canceled credit cards or report me for illegally-shared files."

Re:A little self-important and misguided...

[Red Flayer]

I think you misunderstand my point. It's not that Apple/RIAA et al now have copyright on your name, what is relevant is the copyright on the media.

You're also making the same assumption of the original article that the purpose of adding that information was to prevent copyright infringement...

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 distribution, they can be held liable according to US law -- of course, being a French concern, there are some issues with jurisdiction. Familiarize yourself with the Napster case, and you'll see why this is true.

As to "No court in the land.", see 2. Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F. 2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971), which established contributory liability (as used as precedent in the Grokster case):

The standard definition for contributory copyright infringement is when the defendant, "with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another."

.

Any court in the US could very easily, and would quite likely, find that the publishers of this software induce the infringing conduct of others -- again, depending on how the software is marketed and/or distributed.

Please, do some research before assuming that no court in the land would find against the company. The sad and scary truth is that the media cartels have persuaded the US government to uphold their interests over those of the consumer, with the force of law.