Malware could turn innocent iTunes Plus users into file-sharers
Summary: Freedom to Tinker raises an interesting concern that malware could be used to turn innocent iTunes Plus (Apple's DRM-free music offering) users into file-sharers.
Freedom to Tinker raises an interesting concern that malware could be used to turn innocent iTunes Plus (Apple's DRM-free music offering) users into file-sharers.
If a file is swiped from a customer’s machine and then distributed, you’ll know where the file came from but you won’t know who is at fault. This scenario is very plausible, given that as many as 10% of the machines on the Net contain bot software that could easily be directed to swipe iTunes files.
This is an interesting scenario, and I'm quite certain that if iTunes Plus takes off, someone somewhere running a bot network will give this a go, if for no other reason than so that he or she can have a good chortle. But what bothers me more is that files could leak to the P2P networks via other users of a PC (for example, one user on a PC has an iTunes account and gives iTunes Plus a spin, then later another user decides to share these files with a friend or family member who's also into file-sharing ...).
Also, just as I had suspected, there's no integrity check on the validity of the iTunes user name stored in the file:
More interesting than the lack of encryption is the apparent lack of integrity checks on the data. This makes it pretty easy to change the name in a file. Fred predicts that somebody will make a tool for changing the name to “Steve Jobs” or something. Worse yet, it would be easy to change the data in a file to frame an innocent person – which makes the name information pretty much useless for enforcement.
All in all, pretty sloppy on Apple's part, although I'm expecting that the Apple apologists (those who'd be calling for hangings if it was Microsoft doing something like this) will have very good excuses as to why Apple opted to do this.
Thoughts?
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
If a file is swiped from a customer’s machine and then distributed, you’ll know where the file came from but you won’t know who is at fault. This scenario is very plausible, given that as many as 10% of the machines on the Net contain bot software that could easily be directed to swipe iTunes files.
Talkback
Innocent?
[B]then later another user decides to share these files with a friend or family member who?s also into file-sharing ?[/B]
Then it's time to smack them upside the head and tell them the difference between right and wrong. File sharing of copyrighted work that you don't own the rights to [B]is WRONG[/B].
If it's your kids doing the filesharing, maybe it's time to go over right and wrong. If it's your brother, maybe it's time to block access to your music if they can't use it responsibly.
I don't see the name tag holding up in court because anyone can use a hex editor and modify it to anything. As for bots inside computers, isn't that really widespread today, and since most music exists DRM free (ripped from CDs), the problem would not be any worse than it already is.
In any case, DRM free music is DRM free for the purchasers fair use, not a license to put on p2p networks or give away to all your friends.
TripleII
What I mean there ...
I do see your point
TripleII
I don't think peole care all that much
So here's what we know. We know if a song can be traded easily it will and we also know that CDs still sell, people still listen to radio and attend concerts even if they can get the music for free via the internet. So you can try to battle casual piracy but you will lose or you try to get people to buy music by making it more than just a digital file that anyone can get for free.
I'm not advocating piracy here, I'm just saying choose your battles. I don't think you can win by attacking casual piracy but I think you can by offering something of value over a plain jane digital file.
I think of water and how they pulled that off. They offered something better than tap water even if only in perception but not in reality. Now they sell tap water in fancy bottle and people eat it up. I could just as easily fill my own bottle from the tap at home. The Tap is just like the my internet pipe. What can the music industry do to make music like bottled water?
Water
Ah, I see where you're going with this...reverse osmosis is the key to stopping piracy.
Not like speeding
Theft, however, is not relative. You do it - or you don't. The only grey area is created by those who purchase the one they decide to keep, and dump the ones they 'test' as quickly as possible - a somewhat dark gray, but gray nevertheless.
Better analogies please! :)
copyright infringement != theft.
Theft deprives a person of the original object. Sharing a digital file, particularly with a friend or family member, is not theft, piracy or copyright infringement.
Thank god there's those of us who don't live in a country where the government is owned by the media cartels.
AFAIK
Case 2 is just bad luck, it could only be prevented by ensuring that users of a pc can't have access to each other directories.
One thing to consider though is that we're only aware of one watermark in the file, which is also pretty obvious. If there's another one not so easy detectable (which wouldn't surprise me @ all), the consistency check would be very well possible
Apple apoligists !?!?!?
So ...
Not so much.
which it obviously is not, for all the reasons you mention.
Considering all the overreaction accross the net regarding this problem, it would be
nice if Apple spoke up about what this tag is meant to accomplish, but in no scenario
can I imagine that it is intended for any legal purpose.
Then, what's the point?
Or is it meant to mislead the user into believeing the he/she now owns the rights to the file and can do what they wish with it?
Maybe it WAS meant for legal reasons
[i]in no scenario can I imagine that it is intended for any legal purpose.[/i]
Way to prove his point!
set time machine to 1996
This was funny and fresh, a decade ago. You need to find some new material.
So freaking what
This is more of the same, more flimsy evidence that the RIAA could use to send out more extortion demands, but that doesn't have a hope in hell of standing up in court. I'm surprised we haven't yet seen scripts to change all of those tags yet (I predict we will within the next few weeks).
Your assumption is that these tags are put there solely by Apple for the purpose of preventing filesharing. Are you sure of this? Could Apple have any other reason for doing this (accounting?)?
Accounting???
Madness indeed. The 'watermark' serves no purpose what so ever. I'm left wondering why Apple bothered.
Exactly right
Either Apple is stupid for bothering to do something with no purpose or they are stupid for having a purpose but really, really, really botching it. Can't Apple do anything right? It would appear not.
Can't Apple do anything right?
satisfaction among computer companies.
You're right - they just keep botching it.
The MS is even more right!