e-ignite

The recent release of “iTunes Plus” has been over-shadowed by many users complaining about the fact that personal details have been embedded in the purchased track tags. Personally, I hardly find this surprising and I’d go so far to say that some users are citing “privacy concerns” as a reason to break the law, breach copyright and illegally share songs.

A bit of history: the Hymn Project is one of the oldest methods for users to remove the copy protection from songs legally purchased through iTunes (prior to version 7). This has been heralded as a “consumer champion” since it allows users to play their purchased songs on whatever equipment they like. Legalities aside, it is widely used and liked by many users. One of the key points in the Hymn Project, however, is that it removes the copy protection, but retains all the purchaser’s details on the track tags. The removal of the purchaser’s details was possible according to the Hymn site, but they saw no justification to do so.  The makers of Hymn rightly state that they do not condone piracy, they are simply exercising their rights to use their legally purchased content how they see fit without being guilty of piracy.

Now, with iTunes Plus offering DRM free downloads, several sites feature complaints that this “hidden user information” is a major breach of privacy. I don’t think so.

The user information is held within what is essentially an editable tag - these tags are found on most audio files such as mp3 and hold information such as track title, artist and album. As far as I can tell, the purpose of placing the user information in the tags is to act as a deterrent for users to share their files, and this is absolutely understandable. They do not limit the way the files can be legally used in any way, nor are they exploitable in terms of privacy unless users give access to the files to other parties. If a user really wants to remove the personal information from the purchased iTunes files, I would find it very difficult to believe that it wasn’t possible, or even if it was difficult.

The right to privacy is just that: it is defined as “the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one’s private life or affairs” - it is not an excuse for breaching copyright or breaking the law. When you purchase songs online, you purchase the right to listen to them as you please in the manner you wish - the removal of DRM from some tracks on iTunes simply extends the list of devices on which you can use the files you have purchased. Removing DRM makes sharing files possible, but it does not make it legal. I’m afraid that any claims of privacy breaches as a result of embedded personal details gain no sympathy from me (a self-admitted privacy advocate). In cases where “privacy” is used as a blatant excuse for law breaking, it reduces sympathy for the cause and degrades public and legal support for true and justified privacy. News stories such as this are, in my opinion, counter-productive.

So are Apple free from blame? No, not really. It perhaps should have been made clear from the beginning that DRM Free tracks would still contain personal details in the tags - this was no surprise to me since I expected it, although I can understand if people were expecting tracks as if ripped directly from a CD with nothing more than the required track tagging.

Is it a problem? Does it warrant protest? Are Apple or EMI in the wrong because of this? I don’t believe so.