Comments on: Lrn 2 uZ ‘sed’, n00bz http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2007/05/lrn-2-uz-sed-n00bz.html The Emergent Chaos Jazz Combo Wed, 01 Feb 2012 19:20:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Adam http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2007/05/lrn-2-uz-sed-n00bz.html/comment-page-1#comment-3666 Adam Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:02:16 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2382#comment-3666 Yeah, lrn 2 uZ sed, Chris! :) Yeah, lrn 2 uZ sed, Chris! :)

]]> By: Drew Thaler http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2007/05/lrn-2-uz-sed-n00bz.html/comment-page-1#comment-3665 Drew Thaler Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:21:57 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2382#comment-3665 <blockquote>Wait - no digital signature on that data that can be verified to ensure it hasn't been tampered with?</blockquote> Just because iTunes doesn't complain about it doesn't mean there isn't a signature.

Wait – no digital signature on that data that can be verified to ensure it hasn’t been tampered with?

Just because iTunes doesn’t complain about it doesn’t mean there isn’t a signature.

]]> By: HenryH http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2007/05/lrn-2-uz-sed-n00bz.html/comment-page-1#comment-3664 HenryH Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:06:28 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2382#comment-3664 Seems to me you can always expand your mp3's to a lossless format that is known not to store any metadata (I'd say wave files are a pretty safe bet), and then re-encode them as mp3 again. The conversion to a lossless format would clear any identifying metadata, and the encoding to mp3 will most likely render any watermark useless. The only downside is that re-encoding an mp3 (which is a 'lossy' format) will result in an mp3 of lower quality. Seems to me you can always expand your mp3′s to a lossless format that is known not to store any metadata (I’d say wave files are a pretty safe bet), and then re-encode them as mp3 again.
The conversion to a lossless format would clear any identifying metadata, and the encoding to mp3 will most likely render any watermark useless.
The only downside is that re-encoding an mp3 (which is a ‘lossy’ format) will result in an mp3 of lower quality.

]]> By: joshuadf http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2007/05/lrn-2-uz-sed-n00bz.html/comment-page-1#comment-3663 joshuadf Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:11:37 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2382#comment-3663 There is a hidden benefit to the email address being in purchased songs--I found a lost iPod and that was the only place with the owner's contact info. There is a hidden benefit to the email address being in purchased songs–I found a lost iPod and that was the only place with the owner’s contact info.

]]> By: Iang http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2007/05/lrn-2-uz-sed-n00bz.html/comment-page-1#comment-3662 Iang Thu, 31 May 2007 16:07:43 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2382#comment-3662 Why are they saying it is non-DRM? Is that a typo? Why are they saying it is non-DRM? Is that a typo?

]]> By: Mike Dimmick http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2007/05/lrn-2-uz-sed-n00bz.html/comment-page-1#comment-3661 Mike Dimmick Thu, 31 May 2007 15:58:01 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2382#comment-3661 Wait - no digital signature on that data that can be verified to ensure it hasn't been tampered with? LMAO Wait – no digital signature on that data that can be verified to ensure it hasn’t been tampered with?
LMAO

]]> By: Drew Thaler http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2007/05/lrn-2-uz-sed-n00bz.html/comment-page-1#comment-3660 Drew Thaler Wed, 30 May 2007 23:57:26 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2382#comment-3660 Yeah, they are out to get you. Suppose hypothetically that they encode your name more than once, e.g. both in ASCII and with some other more complicated watermark. The ASCII one could be for the UI to display, but the other one is what they'd use to track you down if it showed up on a P2P network. The code for this more complicated mark wouldn't even need to be included in iTunes or QuickTime -- it could exist purely in the iTMS servers and in a separate forensics app. Without a binary containing the algorithm to examine, a pirate would be hard-pressed to reverse it and erase the data. Comparing the files for a track purchased by two different users might detect whether such a scheme exists. But wait -- what if they only modify 1% of the purchased tracks? Or if they only turn on the extra watermarking for one day each week? That would still be enough to catch the large-scale culprits. Yeah, they are out to get you.
Suppose hypothetically that they encode your name more than once, e.g. both in ASCII and with some other more complicated watermark. The ASCII one could be for the UI to display, but the other one is what they’d use to track you down if it showed up on a P2P network. The code for this more complicated mark wouldn’t even need to be included in iTunes or QuickTime — it could exist purely in the iTMS servers and in a separate forensics app. Without a binary containing the algorithm to examine, a pirate would be hard-pressed to reverse it and erase the data.
Comparing the files for a track purchased by two different users might detect whether such a scheme exists. But wait — what if they only modify 1% of the purchased tracks? Or if they only turn on the extra watermarking for one day each week? That would still be enough to catch the large-scale culprits.

]]>