Personal data where the DRM used to be
The BBC report apparent anger at the new DRM-free music tracks on iTunes, because they include data that allows the original purchaser to be identified.
At first glance this seems like an excellent plan (although there are bound to be privacy implications I have not considered deeply)
DRM has two effects:
- Generally good - prevents you from sharing the track with lots of people who have not paid for the track
- Generally bad - prevents you from using the track yourself (e.g., in places other than iPod/iTunes in Apple's case)
Swapping DRM for personal data should still achieve effect 1, without effect 2. Sounds good so far!
How about it, video owners?
Posted at 20:36 BST, 1st June 2007.
2 Comments
Add a new comment.
As this rumbles on, it'll be interesting to see what tools emerge foor this kind of metadata. The EFF have reported that the tracks aren't watermarked, and there is a 'sign' field in the metadata, suggesting that they're signed.
Since the audio-portion of the file is the same from one purchased copy to the next (there's no watermarking), I imagine a tool to strip all the meta-data won't be far away.
If Apple products refuse to play the tracks unless there's an appropriate signature on them, we'll be playing an interesting game. I'm not sure it's a great one for their customers, though.
All of this is slightly odd, anyway, as there will continue to be well-encoded copies in pirate circles anyway. The record companies sell me bags of bits, unencumbered, whenever I buy CDs. Why are those same bits (practically) more special when they deliver them over a network?
It's all the more silly with television, where – in Europe, at least – they spew the content into the ether for nothing, but get all twisted up when you change the transmission medium.
Agreed. It seems there is a real opportunity for TV broadcasters to create better, rather than worsetracking of where their content goes, without much of the pain that current DRM causes