Windows Media Player Modifying my files
Robert Headley
I assume it is doing something mostly harmless like normalization or
something, but still, This is not a good thing, being as it changes
the hash of these files, which several file sharing programs use to
identify files.
Does anyone know how to disable this feature?
Gerry Hickman
> Windows Media player has been modifying my files, Video and mp3.
Is this for real?? It sounds horrendous!
--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
Charles Tomaras
"Gerry Hickman" <gerr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:OqqZcW89...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
You haven't given us much to go on. In what way have they been modified? Are
they a different size now? Are they a different format? What is the source
of the files? What is the If you play the file in WMP then play the same
file in Real Player or Quicktime do they then sound different? I can't
imaging how WMP could be modifying files as it doesn't do it on anyone
else's installations.
Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA
Alex Zambelli [MS]
then it's an issue we would definitely be interested looking into.
--
Alex Zambelli [MS]
WMP Test Team
------------------------------
Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. This address is for
newsgroup purposes only.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
You assume all risk for your use.
WMP FAQ: http://www.nwlink.com/~zachd/pss/pss.html
"Gerry Hickman" <gerr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:OqqZcW89...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Gerry Hickman
> It is if he has "Update my music files" enabled.
I don't actually have the player anymore so can't check, but are you
saying there's such an option, or is this an April fool? What is the
purpose of it?
Alex Zambelli [MS]
information for your media files. Just like it can retrieve metadata for
CDs, it has the same ability to do it for media files. Of course, the
media files need to have at least some metadata associated with them to
start with (i.e. artist and title), so that WMP can then correctly
identify them and retrieve additional metadata for the media, as well as
album art.
And since I know where you're most likely going with this discussion: the
answer is NO, there is nothing sneaky or spyware about this! The option
"Update my music" files is clearly presented the first time WMP9 is
started so every user has a chance to opt out. When enabled, this feature
does nothing other than fetch metadata and update the media in your music
folder. It is no different than connecting to a CDDB server and fetching
CD info.
--
Alex Zambelli [MS]
WMP Test Team
------------------------------
Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. This address is for
newsgroup purposes only.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
You assume all risk for your use.
WMP FAQ: http://www.nwlink.com/~zachd/pss/pss.html
"Gerry Hickman" <gerr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:OwdsP2J#CHA....@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Robert Headley
WMP doesn't appear to be modifying my mp3s anymore after I removed all
directories from the monitor list, nor does it appear to have modified
any videos lately, Then again, I haven't been using it lately. I read
in another forum that WMP automatically modifies the sound
normalization of files and attaches it to the file. This isn't good
cause it would change the file hash for said file, I do not wish for
this to happen.
Thanks for your attention in this matter, Alex.
zachd [ms]
Right, turning off "Auto Volume Leveling" would help a little.
IIRC, the metadata reader, when incrementing PlayCount at the completion of
playing a file, flushes the current metadata set to the disc, which would
cause the checksum to update.
That's just my loose understanding, though - I haven't looked into it
further.
--
(speaking for myself and doing this in my free time)
See http://www.nwlink.com/~zachd/pss/pss.html for some helpful WMP info.
Following up to your post with the resolution is good netiquette.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
All e-mail to this account will bounce or be deleted - *use the newsgroups*.
--
"Robert Headley" <rhea...@outhouse-productions.com> wrote in message
news:ea9fe1a4.0304...@posting.google.com...
Robert Headley
Well, as a personally opinion.
If Microsoft applications are altering the hash data of files without
the users express knowledge. Microsoft is going to get accused of
trying to poison the Peer to Peer Community.
Im sure microsoft doesn't want this, as they have a p2p application of
their own.
"zachd [ms]" <za...@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<uU1BhjP#CHA....@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...
Charles Tomaras
> Ah.
>
> Well, as a personally opinion.
>
> If Microsoft applications are altering the hash data of files without
> the users express knowledge. Microsoft is going to get accused of
> trying to poison the Peer to Peer Community.
>
> Im sure microsoft doesn't want this, as they have a p2p application of
> their own.
I've found that it's most helpful to read the documentation that accompanies
an application that I'm new to as well as taking a thorough look at the
preferences and options. Had you done that before posting in this newsgroup
you would have realized what a rich program and tool set Windows Media
Player 9 is, and saved yourself a lot of frustration and misguided
negativity towards what is probably one of Microsoft's most innovative and
important offerings which stands FAR above the other competing products in
this category.
Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA
Robert Headley
I searched the News groups, I went through all my options, and I even
checked out the registry before I even posted to this forum.
WMP 9 is a great program I agree, It's Relatively low memory usage,
and its loaded with features and ability. Regardless of the quality of
the program, I still don't want it altering all my files.
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:<el84DBb#CHA....@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...
Tim
don't want my files modified, only because it changes the modifcation date.
I don't really use the other info that is added to the files, but I do use
the dates. I have turned these options off, but still the dates are changed
somehow. Did I miss something? Does anyone know how I can completely turn
these options off?
Thanks
"Alex Zambelli [MS]" <ale...@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uGJWB9J#CHA....@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Robert Headley
Dont categorize your folders by media type.. video, mp3, etc...
I turned off that.. and it no longer modifies my files I dont think...
but there should be a way to disable that feature in WMP.
"Tim" <tmo...@lww.com> wrote in message news:<OXB9$Yf#CHA....@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>...
Gerry Hickman
> I've found that it's most helpful to read the documentation that
> accompanies
> an application
Sure, that's fine for a computer geek that spends all day reading the
documentation and looking at all the options and having a set of test
files to trash during the testing phase, but most users are not in that
category. I imagine WMP 9 will soon be automatically installed along
with other things such as internet Explorer (?), or may appear on a
customer's machine when they buy it from the mall? How are these users
supposed to know what options have been set for them? How will they know
if their on-line activities are being tracked? Same occurs when you have
to re-install the player for some reason and forget to disable the
options. Most people will end up with the default options, and as
discussed in earlier threads, these options have been deliberately
weighted so the user has to "opt out" of everything. This will even
apply in schools. How are the kids supposed to know what the options
mean? How can they agree to the privacy policy when the player is just
"there" on their computer, installed by the school's technician?
zachd [ms]
> Charles Tomaras wrote:
> > I've found that it's most helpful to read the documentation that
> > accompanies an application
> Sure, that's fine for a computer geek that spends all day reading the
> documentation and looking at all the options and having a set of test
> files to trash during the testing phase, but most users are not in that
> category. I imagine WMP 9 will soon be automatically installed along
> with other things such as internet Explorer (?), or may appear on a
> customer's machine when they buy it from the mall? How are these users
> supposed to know what options have been set for them?
> How will they know if their on-line activities are being tracked?
Isn't it cool that each individual user has to see the privacy options
before they use the 9 Series player the first time? Unless the system
administrator themself overrides it, the individual user always gets that
choice. That's cool.
> Same occurs when you have
> to re-install the player for some reason and forget to disable the
> options. Most people will end up with the default options, and as
Isn't it cool that the installer doesn't reset the options on you when you
reinstall? Your old settings are maintained. That's cool.
> discussed in earlier threads, these options have been deliberately
> weighted so the user has to "opt out" of everything. This will even
> apply in schools. How are the kids supposed to know what the options
> mean? How can they agree to the privacy policy when the player is just
> "there" on their computer, installed by the school's technician?
Isn't it cool that not all the options are checked by default so that you do
not have to opt out of everything?
Isn't it cool that the option settings have to be considered a generally
reasonable default to the average person? It was deemed critically
important that the average person be comfortable with the settings.
Isn't it cool that the Privacy Policy has to be generally understandable?
It's often hard to make these things clear, but nobody would accept a policy
that the average user couldn't understand.
I'm glad we're on the same page. That simple statement at the top of the
Privacy Policy, "Microsoft is committed to protecting your privacy.", really
nicely summarizes the way things work. :)
It's pretty cool that a lot people worked very hard to make sure this was
all coolly straight-forward and simple. I don't think privacy could have
been taken more seriously than it was. That makes me happy to work here and
with these people.
-Zach
Charles Tomaras
> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>
> > I've found that it's most helpful to read the documentation that
> > accompanies
> > an application
>
> Sure, that's fine for a computer geek that spends all day reading the
> documentation and looking at all the options and having a set of test
> files to trash during the testing phase, but most users are not in that
> category.
You found the time to come here and pick the brains of the people who
reasonably read a little before running a program. You also found the time
to compose posts indicting Microsoft and the Windows Media Player authors of
shoddy work and spying.
I imagine WMP 9 will soon be automatically installed along
> with other things such as internet Explorer (?), or may appear on a
> customer's machine when they buy it from the mall? How are these users
> supposed to know what options have been set for them? How will they know
> if their on-line activities are being tracked? Same occurs when you have
> to re-install the player for some reason and forget to disable the
> options. Most people will end up with the default options, and as
> discussed in earlier threads, these options have been deliberately
> weighted so the user has to "opt out" of everything.
Please give us an example of the options you are referring to. I'm also
pretty sure from your post that you've never had any of the things you
conjecture about happen....because they don't!
>This will even
> apply in schools. How are the kids supposed to know what the options
> mean? How can they agree to the privacy policy when the player is just
> "there" on their computer, installed by the school's technician?
I'm betting the kids will have a lot less problems with it than you seem to.
Most of the kids out there run circles around the adults on computers. If
you can't figure it out you can always buy an Apple and have your choice of
colors and that "out of box" experience.
Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA
Gerry Hickman
> >Sure, that's fine for a computer geek that spends all day reading the
> >documentation
>
> Isn't it cool that each individual user has to see the privacy options
> before they use the 9 Series player the first time?
Most of them will never see it. A friend or SysAdmin will install it and
the user will just use it. Anyway, users don't read such things - they
click OK to whatever they need to in order to get it working. If a court
case ensues that involves children, I think you'll see what I mean.
> Isn't it cool that not all the options are checked by default so that
> you do
> not have to opt out of everything?
I thought a minute ago you said we *did* need to opt out of everything?
> Isn't it cool that the option settings have to be considered a generally
> reasonable default to the average person?
They are not reasonable in any way.
> It's often hard to make these things clear, but nobody would accept a
> policy
> that the average user couldn't understand.
No one *is* accepting it. They are merely clicking "I Accept" in order
to get it to work. The person who clicks "I Accept" is not the same
person who will use the player - e.g. Dad installs it and the kids use it.
> I'm glad we're on the same page.
Me too.
> That simple statement at the top of the
> Privacy Policy, "Microsoft is committed to protecting your privacy.",
> really
> nicely summarizes the way things work. :)
Come on! You are starting to sound like you've been program'd:)
"Microsoft cares about everyone, and protects them from the big bad
world out there". LOL!
What I find strange about all this is if it's all so "open and honest",
why is there no mention in the Privacy Policy of what information is
being sent, to whom and why? When I asked you why unwanted connections
are made even after Meta data retrieval has been turned off, you said it
"probably to check if the connection is still open". You obviously view
us as complete retards - why not just say what the reason is? I assume
you know?
Gerry Hickman
> I'm betting the kids will have a lot less problems with it than you
> seem to.
You got that right. They probably won't even know it's there, and that's
the problem. Kids can't be expected to understand or agree to
Microsoft's privacy policy. We had a similar problem in UK schools a few
years back. The company who installed the snoop-ware said it was
"helping the children", but once legal action began it was a different
story...
zachd [ms]
> > Isn't it cool that not all the options are checked by default so that
> > you do not have to opt out of everything?
> I thought a minute ago you said we *did* need to opt out of everything?
Hm. That wouldn't have made sense. Why don't you verify, though? That'll
ease your heart. Create a new user account and then try to use the player.
> > It's often hard to make these things clear, but nobody would accept a
> > policy that the average user couldn't understand.
> No one *is* accepting it. They are merely clicking "I Accept" in order
> to get it to work. The person who clicks "I Accept" is not the same
> person who will use the player - e.g. Dad installs it and the kids use it.
From the little I know, ignorance isn't an excuse in contact law. If
someone is breezing through Privacy options stuck in their face, they
wouldn't seem to care about privacy much. But in the case where a user does
breeze through the settings, the settings have to be reasonable for that
average user (who we're assuming for the sake of argument may not be you).
> > That simple statement at the top of the
> > Privacy Policy, "Microsoft is committed to protecting your privacy.",
> > really nicely summarizes the way things work. :)
> Come on! You are starting to sound like you've been program'd:)
Funny. I grew up one of the more belligerant anti-Microsoft haters, weaned
on Mac and U*ix. If anything, I'm hypersensitive. I've always ensured that
in my area of the product, we do what's right. I've never ever received any
directives to do anything other than the Right Thing. I've repeatedly had
to deal with belligerent external doofuses (not you) who either
misrepresented or lied about stuff that I'd worked on. Including the
president of a certain competitor of ours who I'd personally called to alert
to a bug in their software. It's been pretty bad, but I understand that
people need something to hate. Unfortunately, there's just people that can
never be reached no matter how much logic assails them. Hopefully they can
make their own peace. :\
> "Microsoft cares about everyone, and protects them from the big bad
> world out there". LOL!
> What I find strange about all this is if it's all so "open and honest",
> why is there no mention in the Privacy Policy of what information is
> being sent, to whom and why? When I asked you why unwanted connections
> are made even after Meta data retrieval has been turned off, you said it
> "probably to check if the connection is still open". You obviously view
> us as complete retards - why not just say what the reason is? I assume
> you know?
I don't view anybody as a retard. Why would I? Everyone has their body of
knowledge. Computer knowledge is generally boring and doesn't apply well to
the rest of life.
I have no clue whatsoever what connection is being made. I haven't sat down
with ZoneAlarm or similar software and tracked all network traffic because I
don't find it interesting. If you want to track connections, I could
probably figure out what the connection attempts relate to (based solely
upon externally available knowledge), but I simply don't have the time nor
the interest in figuring out what weirdness the Media Library peoples did.
The FTC says it better than I could-
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/08/microsoft.htm
, and it should have nice happy information for you on how to contact
privacy groups if you want to get them involved for some reason. If you're
only going to be happy if people investigate your concerns for you, have 'em
investigate your concerns for you. I'm not that guy, and I don't think
anyone here is.
Charles Tomaras
Below you will find some of the hundreds of computer related posts that you
have made in your recent past. It seems to me that you have lot's more
computer knowledge then you have been leading us to believe. I think you are
more than capable of reading a few help files and checking out a few options
settings. You have also taken pot shots at Microsoft in a number of your
posts, one of which is included below. It seems to me you are just
expressing misguided anger in your attitude towards Windows Media Player.
From: Gerry Hickman (ger...@dircon.co.uk)
Subject: Solved (Was: Connect "new style" UW2 to scanner?)
Newsgroups: comp.periphs.scsi
Date: 1999/03/20
Hi all,
I bought a cable by "Belkin" which is 68pin MicroD to 50 pin large
Centronics, and it works! There is an in-line terminator at the
centronics end.
After reading the docs for the AIC7890 chipset, it appears that my
scanner config won't hurt my LVD drive, since I *think* they are on
different segments. There are two 68 pin connectors on the MotherBoard,
and as far as I know, one is on the LVD segment, and the other is on the
SE segment. The SCSI BIOS certainly identifies the items correctly, and
the hard drive performance _seems_ to be tops.
"Gerry Hickman" <ger...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3C151183...@dircon.co.uk...
Thanks Rick,
I found a partial solution to this today. For some reason the "Auto
Select" (tray assignment) box was greyed out, after unlocking and
relocking the trays the "Auto Select" box suddenly lit up allowing me to
chose "Tray 2" as default. This means for most day to day tasks the
printer works fine.
However, if I set it back to "Auto Select", it doesn't work anymore,
despite the manual tray being closed.
I've a feeling there may be a hardware fault with the printer...
From: Gerry Hickman (gerr...@netscape.net)
Subject: Re: InCD - numerous problems?
View: Complete Thread (14 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: comp.publish.cdrom.software
Date: 2002-12-29 17:25:03 PST
Hi smh,
> WriteCD-RW
> http://www.softarch.com/
OK, I see they have a Demo. I'll give it a try. Thanks.
BTW, what are M$ going to do about Mt Rainier? Buy it from someone? Make
their own?? Hmmm.
From: Gerry Hickman (ger...@dircon.co.uk)Subject: File::CounterFile and
DEFAULT_DIR? View: Complete Thread (4 articles) Original Format Newsgroups:
comp.lang.perl.miscDate: 2002-10-20 05:45:03 PST I'm trying to use
File::CounterFile cross-platform and I want to set the
default directory before the counter is created. I tried to do this (see
below), but it didn't work. The ENV variable is being ignored inside the
File::CounterFile module.
use strict;
use File::CounterFile;
$ENV{TMPDIR} = "/some/folder";
print "DEFAULT_DIR is ", $File::CounterFile::DEFAULT_DIR,"\n"; #prints
"/usr/tmp"
# my $c = new File::CounterFile "COUNTER", "aa00";
# ...
From: Gerry Hickman (ger...@dircon.co.uk)Subject: Avoid errors when PMs
can't be found (XML::Parser) ? This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl.miscDate: 2002-10-18
16:05:04 PST Hi,
I'm using AnyData.pm which calls XML::Parser and Parser tries to find
WeakRef and URI/URL, but unfortunately it's an ancient Cobalt box with a
buggy v2.26 Parser and no WeakRef. I can't update the Cobalt box, I
don't have TELNET and the admin won't do it.
I have erros routed to the browser at present from CGI::Carp but see
below:
Thing is the database works perfectly, but every rendered web page shows
three "fatal" errors related to the fact that XML::Parser can't find
it's PMs.
I can turn off "Carp qw(fatalsToBrowser)", but I'm worried these errors
will cause everything to run slower?
Is there any "clean" way I can stop XML::Parser from trying to load
these non-existant modules, or would it be possible to install new
versions of URI/URL and WeakRef in my custom lib path? The problem is
that Parser tries to load URI::URL instead of URI/URL.
Gerry Hickman
This is hilarious! I'd completely forgotten about those posts, and
reading them back just now feels like they were written by someone else.
I don't agree however, that they're anti-Microsoft in any way. What are
you referring to? One line about Mt Rainier? It's a valid point, and
Microsoft never came back with a valid answer.
But you seem to miss my point. My concern is not about what *I*
understand in the privacy policy, it's about what kids in schools will
understand.
Charles Tomaras wrote:
> "Gerry Hickman" wrote in message
> "Gerry Hickman" wrote in message
Gerry Hickman
> From the little I know, ignorance isn't an excuse in contact law.
Quite true. But we were not arguing about whether Microsoft is covered
legally - that's a different argument. We were arguing about whether the
policy and the actions of the player were "reasonable", "just", "fair", etc.
In the past, I've been 100% behind Microsoft, I've never had any reason
to criticize anything they've done. Sure I've made harmless jokes about
Microsoft, most of which I still think are valid, but I've always been
impressed with the way they didn't allow themselves to get dragged down
into the banner-ad, pop-up, flash infested, SpyWare-ish world of their
competitors, now this has changed - the damage is done - it's not
something you can just turn on and off. Microsoft have obviously chosen
this route for the future.
> Funny. I grew up one of the more belligerant anti-Microsoft haters,
> weaned
> on Mac and U*ix.
Well I hope you don't include me in that camp, and from your para below
it appears you don't.
> to deal with belligerent external doofuses (not you) who either
> misrepresented or lied about stuff that I'd worked on.
Yes, I'd be really annoyed if I wrote a program and people started
making up sh*t and telling lies about it.
> I understand that
> people need something to hate.
Well I don't. In my last survey of media players the Microsoft player
won (this was WMP 6.4).
> I have no clue whatsoever what connection is being made. I haven't
> sat down
> with ZoneAlarm or similar software and tracked all network traffic
But this is my point exactly. Why on earth would we need a "network
analyser" to find out what should be written in the privacy policy in
the first place? The fact that Microsoft has not indicated which
information is sent out, and to whom, is (in my view) the crux of the
matter. I was also under the impression you may be a dev on the WMP team?
If I wrote an app that sent private info to a third party, I'd just say
so in the readme and on my web site. That way everyone knows what's
happening and there's no misinformation.
> only going to be happy if people investigate your concerns for you,
That's a very back to front way of looking at things. This is a
newsgroup on the Microsoft server. It's supposed to be where we can ask
for help without tieing up PSS. I asked a question about Media Player
and didn't get an answer, but suddenly it's "investigating my concerns".
If I'd asked why Microsoft's Win2k mirroring doesn't work properly on
boot drives (which is doesn't), would that be considered asking people
to "investigate my concerns", or would that be something else? Just
because my question is related to privacy concerns doesn't suddenly make
it sinister.
My question was "Can WMP9 detect insertions of CDs and report that
insertion to someone other than the end user".
You did answer this above, but in a very ambiguous way, so we still
don't know. I also understand that you may not WANT to answer this. If
it was me, I'd be getting a senior management concensus in writing
before answering any such thing!
My other question was what the other connections were for, after Meta
Data retrieval was turned off, and you've now say you don't know which
is cool. Would you perhaps be able to ask someone for me?
Thanks again for all the help on this, and there's certainly been plenty
of it!
zachd [ms]
> I was also under the impression you may be a dev on the WMP team?
I'm here on my own time, though. Check the sig. I am NOT an official
representative, nor would I want to be. I don't have time nor I would want
to pretend to have time to investigate any or all issues on anyone's behalf
but my own.
As far as anybody is concerned, I'm just another user like yourself.
Expecting anything different from me does me a deep disservice. It's also a
disservice to Microsoft, since I'm very much not here acting on their
behalf, I'm very much not a way to transport data to them, I'm no kind of
communication channel whatsoever.
> If I wrote an app that sent private info to a third party, I'd just say
> so in the readme and on my web site. That way everyone knows what's
> happening and there's no misinformation.
Correct. And if MS did that kind of thing, they'd get their lunch handed to
them in court. That's exactly why Microsoft doesn't do that kind of thing.
> > only going to be happy if people investigate your concerns for you,
> That's a very back to front way of looking at things. This is a
> newsgroup on the Microsoft server. It's supposed to be where we can ask
> for help without tieing up PSS.
Go read the Newsgroup Code of Conduct-
http://www.nwlink.com/~zachd/pss/pss.html#netiquette
- you're making some erroneous assumptions here. This is a peer-supported
forum, not a Microsoft-supported forum. I'm here on my own behalf, and this
is NOT an official report or support channel.
> My question was "Can WMP9 detect insertions of CDs and report that
> insertion to someone other than the end user".
> You did answer this above, but in a very ambiguous way, so we still
> don't know.
Read the privacy policy. If that's "ambiguous", I am wholly unable to
comment further upon it. It would be totally inappropriate for me to need
to translate that. If it doesn't make sense, you need to contact Microsoft
for clarification. You cannot do that in this newsgroup.
> I also understand that you may not WANT to answer this. If
> it was me, I'd be getting a senior management concensus in writing
> before answering any such thing!
For the sake of thinking that you have a clue, I'm going to ignore that you
wrote that.
You don't seem to want to understand. A: Microsoft is under active
scrutiny. B: If user data is being misused, MS will be under fire and it'll
immediately be in the news.
Two data points. Point A is granted by a simple follow-up with the FTC for
verification, Point B is verifiable by quickly checking the Register or
other such "friendly" publication.
Thus we take those data points for granted.
From those two data points, we can deduce the third: Micrsooft is probably
not abusing user privacy, and additionally has a HUGE incentive not to abuse
user privacy. Additionally additionally, if Microsoft does abuse privacy,
intentionally or not, the flock of anti-Microsoft vultures will immediately
descend and the news will have a field day.
It doesn't matter whatsoever if the data is being deliberately misused or
mishandled or not. If it is being misused or mishandled or whatever,
there'll be flocks of lawyers on every ass of every single person at
Microsoft.
You have no idea and at this point seem to perhaps deliberately not want to
have an idea of how extremely seriously people take privacy around here. If
there was an abuse whatsoever of privacy - even after the full and extensive
privacy reviews - I'd have already reported it, and they'd already have
eliminated it.
You're obviously completely unsatisfied with my answers. That's cool. Find
your own, then - the FTC and lots of 3rd party anti-Microsoft organizations
would LOVE to help you out.
> My other question was what the other connections were for, after Meta
> Data retrieval was turned off, and you've now say you don't know which
> is cool. Would you perhaps be able to ask someone for me?
Nope. I'm here on my own behalf only, and not a corporate tool (either
way).
Gerry Hickman
> I'm here on my own time, though. Check the sig. I am NOT an official
> representative, nor would I want to be.
Fair enough.
> As far as anybody is concerned, I'm just another user like yourself.
> Expecting anything different from me does me a deep disservice.
OK.
> >That way everyone knows what's
> >happening and there's no misinformation.
>
> Correct. And if MS did that kind of thing, they'd get their lunch
> handed to
> them in court. That's exactly why Microsoft doesn't do that kind of
> thing.
This part I don't understand. You seem to be saying that misinformation
is good?
> Read the privacy policy. If that's "ambiguous",
It doesn't answer my question.
> B: If user data is being misused, MS will be under fire and it'll
> immediately be in the news.
I don't agree. It's easy to abuse the end user and get away with it, and
the fact that Microsoft wave a piece of paper saying "we're going to
abuse you" doesn't make it OK. It may make it legal, but that's an other
matter.
> From those two data points, we can deduce the third: Micrsooft is probably
> not abusing user privacy,
Well, again it would depend on how "privacy" is defined; in the States
there's no such thing, so it wouldn't apply anyway.
> You have no idea and at this point seem to perhaps deliberately not
> want to
> have an idea of how extremely seriously people take privacy around here.
The only thing Microsoft care about with regard to privacy, is whether
they're covered legally - same as any other big business. At this point
they are covered - at least in the States.
> You're obviously completely unsatisfied with my answers. That's cool.
I'm not unsatisfied. I really appreciate everything you've said.
> Find
> your own, then - the FTC and lots of 3rd party anti-Microsoft
I'm not interested in any "anti-Microsoft" stuff.
javacatR...@radix.net
Alex Z: WMP 9 does indeed alter mp3 files, even when you do NOT have the
"update my files" checked.
What it is doing is adding a ID3v2 tag [if one isn't there already] in
order to embed the normalization data. If the ID3v2 tag is already
present [without the normalization entry] it alters it.
It only does this AFTER you have played the whole song all the way
through. Only if the file is read-only will it leave it alone.
I sent MS a bug report about this over a month ago via the web site
feedback mechanism, I'm suprised you and the test team haven't seen it!
BlueJAMC
news:b6odfn$744$3...@news1.radix.net:
> Ok, back on topic here.
>
> Alex Z: WMP 9 does indeed alter mp3 files, even when you do NOT
> have the "update my files" checked.
>
> What it is doing is adding a ID3v2 tag [if one isn't there
> already] in order to embed the normalization data. If the ID3v2
> tag is already present [without the normalization entry] it
> alters it.
>
> It only does this AFTER you have played the whole song all the
> way through. Only if the file is read-only will it leave it
> alone.
I can't reproduce this here. I've been experimenting with a couple
of files. First I started with a file that has both ID3v1 and ID3v2
tags. It had an MD5 checksum of:
591f5f4bb8875ee7c2869dc4ff08dba3
I played the file all the way through in WMP9, and came out with the
following checksum:
591f5f4bb8875ee7c2869dc4ff08dba3
Ok, so no differences so far. So, I removed the ID3v2 tag and came
up with the following checksum:
b123c04e25abc898e3a4749ec8b8749a
Ok, it's different, as expected after removing the ID3v2 tag. So now
I play it again in WMP9, and come up with:
b123c04e25abc898e3a4749ec8b8749a
Same checksum. So now I remove the ID3v1 and re-create the ID3v2.
078e536f4adc3fdc3346645b657d014a
Play it again in WMP9...
078e536f4adc3fdc3346645b657d014a
Finally, I remove all the tagging.
542945b39b1df769c0bacf14f76a7fb2
Play it again, Sam...
542945b39b1df769c0bacf14f76a7fb2
Relevant settings:
Songs being played: 13_-_bloodhound_gang_-_this_is_stupid.mp3
Bitrate: 128
Length: 10 seconds
Tagging creation and removal done in Winamp 2.90
So the question I have is, are you completely sure that under
Options->Media Library that you have unchecked "Update My Music Files
(WMA and MP3) by retrieving missing media information from the
internet"?
> I sent MS a bug report about this over a month ago via the web
> site feedback mechanism, I'm suprised you and the test team
> haven't seen it!
Perhaps the reason they haven't seen it is because it hasn't yet been
reproducable by them?
javacatR...@radix.net
Ok, Alex, I just tried it again, it DOES mod the files!
Try This:
Put 3 mp3's in a folder, and strip off their ID3v2 tags,
leaving just a v1 Tag. If you like MD5 'em; I CRC'd 'em.
With WMP closed, select the 3 files in explorer, right-click
and choose Queue-It-Up.
Let all three files in this "playlist" play to the end.
[BTW, I believe "playlist" is the key here! See below.]
Check the files: the 2nd and 3rd will have a v2 Tag added, its
fields init'd from the v1 tag info, along with volume
normalization data. Apparently it feels compelled to
normalize the "playlist". [No, I do not have the "auto
volume leveling" effect turned on. No effects are turned on.]
Happens everytime, unless you mark the files Read-Only.
I do not have "update my files" checked.
I'm disconnected from the internet at the time too.
My system: Dell P3 1GHz, 256MB, FAT 32, XP Pro SP1 w/ all
WU updates as of 6APR03, WMP 9 build 2980.
CRC-16 Data:
Before:
c:\documents and settings\paul\desktop\new music>\util\CRC16CHK.EXE
C:\DOCUME~1\PAUL\DESKTOP\NEWMUS~1
PAULSI~1.MP3 AF91
PAULSI~4.MP3 021D
PAULSI~3.MP3 A938
After:
c:\documents and settings\paul\desktop\new music>\util\CRC16CHK.EXE
C:\DOCUME~1\PAUL\DESKTOP\NEWMUS~1
PAULSI~1.MP3 41A9 <--- *** CHANGED ***
PAULSI~4.MP3 021D
PAULSI~3.MP3 B826 <--- *** CHANGED ***
Good Luck, and get back to us!
javacatR...@radix.net
but if you leave WMP open and running in the background for a while, it'll
update the 1st file too!
When I ran that last crc check it was about 15 seconds after the play list
had completed. Only 2 + 3 had been changed, and I figured that was that.
But several minutes later I checked again [just for grins], and lo and
behold the other guy was changed too!
C:\DOCUME~1\PAUL\DESKTOP\NEWMUS~1
PAULSI~1.MP3 41A9
PAULSI~4.MP3 73D0 <--- *** CHANGED ***
PAULSI~3.MP3 B826
All three had new v2 tags added.
Hope that helps.
BlueJAMC
@news1.radix.net:
> Ok, Alex, I just tried it again, it DOES mod the files!
Not sure who Alex is, but alright...
> Try This:
>
> Put 3 mp3's in a folder, and strip off their ID3v2 tags,
> leaving just a v1 Tag. If you like MD5 'em; I CRC'd 'em.
>
> With WMP closed, select the 3 files in explorer, right-click
> and choose Queue-It-Up.
Ok, I don't have a "Queue-It-Up" option in my context menu, so I'm
going to try "Play with Media Player" and also create a playlist
manually. It may be limited to Windows XP...
> Let all three files in this "playlist" play to the end.
> [BTW, I believe "playlist" is the key here! See below.]
>
> Check the files: the 2nd and 3rd will have a v2 Tag added, its
> fields init'd from the v1 tag info, along with volume
> normalization data. Apparently it feels compelled to
> normalize the "playlist". [No, I do not have the "auto
> volume leveling" effect turned on. No effects are turned on.]
I still can't reproduce it. :-/ Maybe someone else with XP can
give it a shot? (I'm on Windows 2000 Pro SP3.) If push comes to
shove, I can load XP onto this machine and give it a shot.
*snip*
Alex Zambelli [MS]
files to Media Library when played" enabled in your Options?
--
Alex Zambelli [MS]
WMP Test Team
------------------------------
Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. This address is for
newsgroup purposes only.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
You assume all risk for your use.
WMP FAQ: http://www.nwlink.com/~zachd/pss/pss.html
<javacatR...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:b6sinu$3uf$1...@news1.radix.net...
javacatR...@radix.net
> OK, while I try to repro this, let me ask you: do you have "Add music
> files to Media Library when played" enabled in your Options?
No, I do not.
If you'd like I can post/mail a reg export of my settings.
FWIW, I noticed this behaviour the first hour I tried WMP 9 about 6 weeks
ago, I tried turning off every option I could find, that's when I dug in
and found the ID3v2 fields it was writting: (priv) PeakValue and (priv)
AverageLevel.
-------
Sorry BlueJA, I thought you were Alex! I didn't read the header carfully
enough. Your post had the air of a "Professional Tester", so I just
ass-u-me'd you were Alex. Anyway...
So, you can't repro this on W2000?
Hum......
--------
BlueJAMC
news:b6svnm$d0t$1...@news1.radix.net:
> Sorry BlueJA, I thought you were Alex!
No problem. :)
> I didn't read the header carfully enough.
Happens to the best of us (and I'm being overly generous to myself
by lumping myself in with "the best" <g>).
> Your post had the air of a "Professional Tester", so I just
> ass-u-me'd you were Alex.
Wow...I don't think anyone's EVER called me professional before!
:)
> Anyway...
>
> So, you can't repro this on W2000?
No I can't, although like I said, I don't have "Queue-It-Up" item
in my context menu. I *did* try creating a playlist within WMP9
and then selecting the playlist and playing it, but that didn't
give the effect that you were describing either.
Alex Zambelli [MS]
certainly paid off. I managed to get a good repro of the issue and it is
currently being further investigated. Thanks!!!
--
Alex Zambelli [MS]
WMP Test Team
------------------------------
Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. This address is for
newsgroup purposes only.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
You assume all risk for your use.
WMP FAQ: http://www.nwlink.com/~zachd/pss/pss.html
<javacatR...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:b6svnm$d0t$1...@news1.radix.net...