Common sense from EFF? Not.

If your iPod contained your name and it was stolen, the authorities wouldn't come knocking on your door and accuse you of stealing your own iPod.

However, if your iPod is stolen with iTunes Plus files, it's quite possible those files could wind up on a P2P network and potentially expose you to prosecution for copyright infringement.

I'm guessing the RIAA wouldn't have much sympathy for a "my iPod was stolen" defense.

I’m guessing that a court, which is where copyright infringement cases are decided, would have a great deal of sympathy for a “my iPod was stolen” defence. And after all, you’d report the theft to the police, who would give you a crime number, right? And you might also claim on your insurance to get a replacement iPod.

There would be plenty of evidence that that was what had happened, so I don’t think it’s a situation that people need worry about. Besides, RIAA would only bother pursuing the worst offenders, because it’s disproportionately expensive trying to sue consumers for this type of activity.

If someone lost a recent “full” iPod, they’d probably report it to the police. If someone lost a first-gen iPod Shuffle, it’s reasonably likely they wouldn’t.

Still, I don’t think the DMCA or the various copycat laws put the full burden of evidence on the accused (yet), so the “I lost it” defense should stand up in court anyway.

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but people commonly mark their name and address onto items that they don’t want to lose, presumably on the assumption that it’s more likely that something will be lost and then found (and maybe handed in) by an honest individual, rather than stolen.

Sorry but consumers don't usually like to be treated as criminals. These songs can be downloaded for free in any P2P network. It doesn't make any sense to link the files with the user's data. It should be the consumer's choice to mark their data onto the files; it should be their choice if they decide to share the tracks with their friends and no one has got nothing to do with that. After all, they paid for them; they have the right to do what they want with them.

Sorry but consumers don't usually like to be treated as criminals.

That isn’t what’s happening here, though. Sure, I imagine this information is in the files to discourage illegal distribution (and probably for some other reasons too), but it’s hardly “treating consumers like criminals”.

If they made you agree to random searches of your home by RIAA officials without court orders or warrants, then yes, that would be unacceptable, but this is quite, quite different to that and I think it’s mischievous of you to suggest otherwise.

After all, they paid for them; they have the right to do what they want with them.

Actually, no, they don’t. There’s this law called copyright… you may have heard of it? :-)

Seriously, I don’t want to debate the pros and cons of copyright here, but it’s pretty clear that you’re opposed to it on principle. That’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it. But if you have that view, you should talk to your political representatives. Copyright is a law that was voted into existence by such people, and that can be voted out of existence by those same groups, if you represent your views well enough that they become the majority opinion. That’s the whole point of having a democracy, in fact. If the people in power don’t do what you want, vote for someone else who will, or stand for election yourself and make it plain what you think should happen instead.

What you should’t do is disregard laws that you don’t like, just because you don’t like them. Not only can it get you into hot water, but it also makes you and others who adopt your political stance on copyright look childish.

Isn't privacy having control over what personal details are revealed to what parties? Advocating for anonymity means I want ALL my information private, doesn't it? Seems like a privacy issue to me.

"What you should’t do is disregard laws that you don’t like, just because you don’t like them."

Well I can think of a number of Civil Rights activists who would generally disagree with that statement. Not to compare iTunes music to the Civil Rights movement, but if there is a law out there that people find seriously egregious to their "rights" then they do have the right, some would say obligation to break that law. The DMCA comes immediately to mind. Mind you those that do break said laws must be prepared to deal with the consequences of such law breaking as well so it's not all gravy.

Well I can think of a number of Civil Rights activists who would generally disagree with that statement.

Yes, that’s an interesting point, but it’s still the case that in a liberal democracy, the right way to go about changing the law is through the democratic process. IMO, other routes are only appropriate if all democratic and legal channels have already been exhausted, which does not happen often in either the United States or the United Kingdom.

As with all handwaving generalisations, I’m sure there are plenty of exceptions to this general rule that we might agree on, and I’m equally sure that there are plenty that we wouldn’t.

Isn't privacy having control over what personal details are revealed to what parties? Advocating for anonymity means I want ALL my information private, doesn't it? Seems like a privacy issue to me.

No, I don’t think that is privacy, though I can understand the confusion (the term “personal details” is, I think, very misleading in this regard).

The difference between anonymity and privacy is really that anonymity is about keeping your identity secret from people you are coming into contact with. Privacy, on the other hand, is about having a reasonable expectation that certain information, usually of a personal or financial nature, will not be distributed outside of the expectations of those responsible.

Perhaps the best way to explain it is that anonymity is about how you behave towards others. Privacy is about how others behave towards you. Anonymity can make it easier to achieve privacy, but privacy does not imply anonymity.

I always find it best to think about the real world and what I would and would not find acceptable there. So, for instance, very few people have a desire and even fewer a need for actual anonymity. When was the last time you instructed a lawyer or a bank to act on your behalf without giving your name to the people they were dealing with? I doubt you’ve ever done so… relatively few people have.

But most people, quite reasonably, expect a certain degree of privacy. We don’t expect people to look through our windows, or to follow us about to see where we go. We don’t expect our bank manager to tell someone else how much money we earn (some cultures are more touchy about this than others, of course), nor do we expect our girlfriend (or boyfriend) to tell a total stranger what we got up to in bed last night.

It should be obvious to most people that anonymity is rarely required and can have significant detrimental effects, whereas privacy is often desirable and rarely has unwanted side-effects.

The difference between those who steal music for convenience sake and those who few who actually fought my rights is huge. Civil rights activists disobeyed unjust laws but did not avoid the consequences. In fact, that was the point. People should not go to jail because they want to use the same restroom as another privileged class. Now if the people copying music they didn't buy, violating the DMCA, sent a letter to the RIAA detailing what was done, I could buy the notion they did so with the intention of getting sued to highlight a moral question. Right now it just looks like people looking to get over by stealing music they didn't pay for.