DVD Jon hacks iTunes, creates program that allows you to buy... [Archive] - Page 2

matticus008

Mar 21, 2005, 02:17 PM

Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.

It is wrong to do something you know you are not supposed to do. Whether or not you think that's the right thing to do morally does not mean it's not also the wrong thing to do. Respect for the law is part of morality. It's very simple. You might feel justified in doing something illegal, but that doesn't change the fact that doing something illegal is also wrong. Right and wrong are not mutually exclusive like legal and illegal are.

Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.
But since I haven't lost the argument, it doesn't apply. On moral grounds alone, no one should use the application, because you gave your word to abide by the terms presented to you when you created the account. If your word is not morally binding, then you are an immoral person. Deal with it.

Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.
No, follow the laws because you are obligated to do so. If you decide you do not support one of the laws and you live in a society that can address those concerns and change the law, you have the moral obligation to society to act with legitimate force to change the law. Clearly, you've not dealt with the bulk of what I said. Have you, personally, done anything legal to address the situation? No. Furthermore, you gave your word not to break your agreement with iTunes, and you are going back on your agreement. You have no moral ground to do so. You cannot argue that breaking your word is morally justified. I don't understand what's so hard to see about that.

Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?
It's not any different from speeding. The fact that I know the law and its consequences and still choose to speed demonstrates that I do something that is personally more convenient than following the law. I know this is not a right thing to do, and I know that I'm not supposed to do it, and I know that there are consequences for doing so should I get caught. If I get caught for speeding, I'll get a ticket or go to jail or whatever the legal punishment is for doing so, regardless of my moral opinion of the matter. It's the same with this, if you choose to break the law, that's your decision, but it's wrong and there are consequences. If you do not accept the consequences, don't break the law, and don't pretend that because you feel justified breaking it that it's okay to do.

If everyone went 90mph on the freeway all the time, the cops would install speed limiters in our cars and then people like you would complain that the cars don't do everything you want and break the speed limiters. What you're doing is breaking the law because you want to, and then complaining when the government makes the law harder to break, all because you were breaking the law in the first place.

As for the law cases discussed, they don't apply. The majority of them date back long before a useful, recent period. Furthermore, none of them conflict with the idea of intellectual property. The Supreme Court has ruled that you purchased and own what you buy, not that you own the intellectual property of someone else. You have the right to use that material according to your agreement with the owner. The owner of a book can't tell you what to do with your physical paper object, but they can tell you that you don't have the right to copy the text. The final comments of the judges agree. Jerry's rant would apply if digital music files gave you anything to own, but they don't. It would apply if someone told you that you weren't allowed to sell your CDs after you buy them. But you can. It does not and has never applied (in 100 years or more) to the intellectual property contained in what you buy. For a long time, you haven't been able to steal a design, or republish someone else's book without their permission, or sell a song that doesn't belong to you. None of those cases say you can, and if you believe that you have the right to do so, show ME a case to say it.

dragonsbane

Mar 21, 2005, 03:29 PM

No, follow the laws because you are obligated to do so.
Last I checked you were required to sign something when you got your license stating you would obey all laws. I believe you just said:

You are obliged to not speed.
You choose to to speed (because it is personally more convenient).
Does this mean you are as morally corrupt as a murderer or someone using this application?

Please explain.

dragonsbane

Mar 21, 2005, 03:35 PM

he sees a problem, or a barrier preventing him from doing what he wants with his data, and he breaks through it.
What a fine upstanding human citizen! Good for Jon. If you want something - go get it. Mitigate your journey only by your own morals and your tolerance for the punishments society may place on you for choosing the road you walk. (FWIW: I doubt society would be anywhere if this was not the governing ethic of revolutionaries the world over.)

hulugu

Mar 21, 2005, 03:51 PM

I disagree. What he's doing is illegal and unethical....They will also easily obtain a court injunction to stop this. What he's doing is illegal from two perspectives. First, it's a violation of the iTMS terms of service (which allows only iTunes access). Second, it's a violation of DCMA.
...I happen to disagree - but that's because my company depends on the ability to protect our intellectual property in order to stay in business.
...The music owners have the right to do whatever they want with the music. You can legally (and morally) do what they request or live without their music....Your position is the same as a person who steals a BMW because he doesn't like the purchase terms....No, it's not your music. The music belongs to whoever the artist sold it to (usually a member of the RIAA). They sell you a license to use the music under a given set of terms. If you violate the terms that you paid for, you're stealing....
The music industry owns the music - and they're free to price it however they want. If you think the price is too high, your only legal and moral response is to not buy it. Not liking the price is not justification for theft.

This is a gross and dangerous simplification of Intellectual Property, which is a grab-bag of very complex rights, including copyright.
Music is such a total mess right now because of computers that most people can't see straight, so I like to think of books. I buy a hardcover edition of Pattern Recognition: I can read the book the minute I get it home and I can keep it around for years dog-earing the pages, highlighting passages, making notes. I can even copy pages for reference or to give to my students to read. I can also lend the book to others or I can sell the book to a used bookstore and buy another book. These are my rights, because when I gave the publisher money, the book—the physical lump of paper—becomes mine.
However, the ideas contained within still remain the author's and while I can quote the author at length in various mediums, I must request permission to reproduce the work in its entireity. None of the things above is stealing from the author or robbing the publisher of some imagination monetary stream, because I ownthe book.
When I buy a CD, I should have the analogue rights: the rights to listen to the music at will, to make my own changes and alterations to it (ie mix tapes), to quote it (mash-ups, assuming I can credit the original author), and even make copies of it for personal use (backups, iPod, etc.) Now technology allows me to reproduce exact copies, but this doesn't rob me of my rights to make those copies, it is not my fault that I can make a perfect copy. The changes in technology did not suddenly make the rights I've had since the phonograph change, it may threaten your business model, but it does not and should not affect my personal rights in this paradigm.
However, in either case, I still do not have the right to distribute, sell, or otherwise profit from the book or song. In the case of music, if I make a mash-up, I should request permission to use the track.
But, by selling me a piece of music you are transferring some rights, you are transferring to me, the rights given under the ideas of Fair Use. I did not become a serf to your intellectual property in the process of giving you money.
The idea that by buying a CD or a song from iTMS and then putting it on my iPod, my computers, and CDs from my car is stealing is a facile idea brought on by soft-headed Shylocks who demand their pound of flesh.
Is P2P wrong? Yes. Are mash-ups using the Beatles and Jay-Z? Only if distributed. Is my use of two songs in an iPhoto slideshow robbing Led Zepplin of their dime? No. Now, if I make a movie that uses a Led Zepplin soundtrack and start selling copies, do I own Led some change. Yes?Consumers and authors both have rights, and the inability to understand this rather fair system has resulted in the total cluster-***** we call DRM.

As authors (publishers, musicians, various lawyers) demand more money for fewer rights, consumers rebel as they always do.
I respect copyright, , but I did not give you my soul so that I could hear a little jam once in a while. Your demand of every possible right just shows how greedy the entire system has gotten; you demand a penny for every pleasure. And I'm sick of it.

matticus008

Mar 21, 2005, 04:14 PM

Last I checked you were required to sign something when you got your license stating you would obey all laws. I believe you just said:

You are obliged to not speed.
You choose to to speed (because it is personally more convenient).
Does this mean you are as morally corrupt as a murderer or someone using this application?

Please explain.

What? Where did anyone equate any of this to murder?

You are subject to the laws of the government where you are, regardless of anything you sign. Yes, you sign that you will obey all laws when you get your license. If you drive without a license, you are subject to those same laws regardless. If you break the law, you've done something wrong, whether you felt justified ("right") in doing so depends on you. But it does not negate the fact that your action was wrong and a violation of something you know you're not supposed to do.

It's not about degrees of morally corrupt. It's that what you did was wrong. If it's just a little wrong, it's still wrong. If it was REALLY wrong, it's still wrong. Breaking a law, any law, is wrong by definition. Your punishment will vary based on the severity of that infraction and a thousand other factors. No one is suggesting that you will get the death sentence for breaking these laws. And no one is equivocating any of these infractions to murder, so just knock it off.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing here--it's just plain ridiculous and illogical.

geniusj

Mar 21, 2005, 04:19 PM

That was beautiful, hulugu. This is why I happily 'unwrap' all of my music. Even if I do not run into the barriers imposed by the DRM, the fact that they are there bothers me to no end. I do not distribute my music to others, nor do I do anything that is affecting their bottom line. However, I feel that we have the right to do with the music within the boundaries that you outlined. These are rights that we've had for a long time, and I'm not about to see it go away.

geniusj

Mar 21, 2005, 04:23 PM

You are subject to the laws of the government where you are, regardless of anything you sign. Yes, you sign that you will obey all laws when you get your license. If you drive without a license, you are subject to those same laws regardless. If you break the law, you've done something wrong, whether you felt justified ("right") in doing so depends on you. But it does not negate the fact that your action was wrong and a violation of something you know you're not supposed to do.

It's not about degrees of morally corrupt. It's that what you did was wrong. If it's just a little wrong, it's still wrong. If it was REALLY wrong, it's still wrong. Breaking a law, any law, is wrong by definition. Your punishment will vary based on the severity of that infraction and a thousand other factors..
I would hate to live in a place where everyone thought as you do. How would anything get changed?

matticus008

Mar 21, 2005, 04:29 PM

You make all valid points repeating what's been said, with the exception of what follows.

When I buy a CD, I should have the analogue rights: the rights to listen to the music at will, to make my own changes and alterations to it (ie mix tapes), to quote it (mash-ups, assuming I can credit the original author), and even make copies of it for personal use (backups, iPod, etc.) Now technology allows me to reproduce exact copies, but this doesn't rob me of my rights to make those copies, it is not my fault that I can make a perfect copy. The changes in technology did not suddenly make the rights I've had since the phonograph change, it may threaten your business model, but it does not and should not affect my personal rights in this paradigm.
You have those rights with your CD. You don't have those rights with the iTunes downloads. You are free to copy music from CDs for your personal use on your iPod or whatnot. Your rights have not changed. You even have the right to copy the songs you've bought from iTunes to your iPod or to CDs. But you do not have the right to take DRM out and do it, when you purchased your file with fair use and purchase-contract rights which include DRM stipulations.

However, in either case, I still do not have the right to distribute, sell, or otherwise profit from the book or song. In the case of music, if I make a mash-up, I should request permission to use the track.
But, by selling me a piece of music you are transferring some rights, you are transferring to me, the rights given under the ideas of Fair Use. I did not become a serf to your intellectual property in the process of giving you money.
The idea that by buying a CD or a song from iTMS and then putting it on my iPod, my computers, and CDs from my car is stealing is a facile idea brought on by soft-headed Shylocks who demand their pound of flesh.

Buying a CD, you're absolutely right, and this has been defended in this thread. Buying a song from iTunes gives you the same rights to use that file and copies of that file WITH DRM. You have every freedom to put it on computers, iPods, and CDs when you buy from iTunes, as long is it works with FairPlay. FairPlay allows you to do all of these things that are your legal right. But you don't have the right to take DRM out and put the material on mediums that are not allowed by your usage rights. If an artist decides to sell music for use in Canada and not the US, you don't have the right to use the music in the US, even if the same music is sold in the US. You have to buy a version that works in the US. If an artist sells music for use with FairPlay-compatible devices, and you accept those terms (by buying it), you don't have the right to use it with non FairPlay enabled devices. The artists are not doing anything illegal by using DRM. If you don't agree with DRM, don't buy music that has it. Buy CDs that are not protected.

matticus008

Mar 21, 2005, 04:35 PM

I would hate to live in a place where everyone thought as you do. How would anything get changed?

You do live in such a place. Things get changed through legitimate channels. If you'd read the other comments, you'd see that there are extreme cases of personal harm and substantial financial harm where illegal action can be permissable. This is NOT one of those cases.

There are many legal avenues for addressing your concerns. You can write to legislators and companies. You can vote with your wallet by not buying things with DRM (because no one is forcing you to do so). You can sue if you believe the terms or laws are illegal. You can lobby and stage protests. These are your options. You've chosen to break the law (which encourages tighter restrictions and greater punishments) rather than do anything productive. Revolutionaries don't always work within the law, but you're pretty deluded if you think that digital music is worth overthrowing the government.

Breaking the law because you feel like it is not the correct way to deal with this problem. If someone steals my car, I go to the police. That's why they exist. If I go and find him and beat him up because he stole my car, then I've broken the law and I go to jail, even if I think it was okay for me to beat him up.

geniusj

Mar 21, 2005, 05:02 PM

There are many legal avenues for addressing your concerns. You can write to legislators and companies. You can vote with your wallet by not buying things with DRM (because no one is forcing you to do so). You can sue if you believe the terms or laws are illegal. You can lobby and stage protests. These are your options. You've chosen to break the law (which encourages tighter restrictions and greater punishments) rather than do anything productive. Revolutionaries don't always work within the law, but you're pretty deluded if you think that digital music is worth overthrowing the government.

Well, we will see where all of this goes in the next few years. Whatever DRM they put out there is going to be broken. It's almost a guarantee. Hopefully they will eventually realize this and remove the sticks from their (or more accurately: OUR) collective asses. We could argue about the morality of this forever. It's a personal judgment. I personally don't give a ****, because I am not doing anything with my files that their DRM was designed to prevent.

Why do I continue to buy from iTMS? I agree that it probably isnt' the best idea if I want anything to change. However, my laziness far exceeds my will to protest. This is likely the story with a lot of people. Driving to the store to get a CD, or waiting for it to be shipped sucks. Getting a whole CD when I only want one song sucks. iTMS provides me an easier solution, and provides me it legally. Am I going to get busted for unwrapping these files? No. Would I get busted if I were to get them off of a file sharing network? It's possible. I'm taking the easy way out, and everyone's getting compensated at the same time. Hooray.

dragonsbane

Mar 21, 2005, 06:31 PM

I'm not even sure what you are arguing here--it's just plain ridiculous and illogical.
There is little that is illogical going on here. Untenable but not illogical.

First you say that breaking the law is wrong. That is why we should not use this app to download songs from the iTMS. Then someone pokes in and shouts "If I want to murder you will you defend my right to do that?" I answer that I respect your desire to unwrap DRM and to murder me.. In both cases, you are subject to the laws of the land. But the key here is that you are driven by your M-O-R-A-L-S!!! You are NOT driven by following a law.

It is hypocritical for you to say it is OK to speed but not grab a tune using this app. You might not want to use this app, but that is just you. You are a SPEEDER for crying out loud. Our society is about to fall apart because you break the law "when you choose". UUUGH! The horror of it all.

I mean, my goodness, what would we do if everyone thought for themselves and made up their own minds about what they would and would not do! So much better if everyone just followed the laws of the land. I mean... if it is a law then it is good and should be obeyed!!!

You, my friend, have argued yourself into a corner. You say we should not break laws but you willingly break them when it suits you. Why is that OK for you but not for me? I have said from the start: Do what you feel. Learn the law and the consequences for breaking it. But at the end of the day, make up your own mind about right and wrong... and follow it.

Convince me of why it is wrong to break this law... but do not try to tell me that by breaking it I am doing something wrong. Illegal, yes. But since when is doing something illegal morally wrong?

matticus008

Mar 21, 2005, 07:11 PM

There is little that is illogical going on here. Untenable but not illogical.
No, illogical.

First you say that breaking the law is wrong. That is why we should not use this app to download songs from the iTMS. Then someone pokes in and shouts "If I want to murder you will you defend my right to do that?" I answer that I respect your desire to unwrap DRM and to murder me.. In both cases, you are subject to the laws of the land. But the key here is that you are driven by your M-O-R-A-L-S!!! You are NOT driven by following a law.
I'm glad you support my (hypothetical) desire to kill you, but the law doesn't. You are restrained by the law, regardless of what you think of them. Your actions are driven by morals and your understanding of the law and consequences for breaking the law. But your moral view does not place you above the law. And so stop trying to justify the breaking of the law as morally right, because it is not in this case. You have legal means to deal with your problems, and you are not using them. There is no moral imperative that makes it so that the law keeps you from doing what you want, because there are legal ways to put all of your music on mp3 players. They're called CDs. And please stop with the spelling out of words. It's unnecessary and juvenile. Most of us can spell.

It is hypocritical for you to say it is OK to speed but not grab a tune using this app. You might not want to use this app, but that is just you. You are a SPEEDER for crying out loud. Our society is about to fall apart because you break the law "when you choose". UUUGH! The horror of it all.
Nowhere did I say it was okay to speed. It is against the law. If you choose to do it, you accept the related consequences. If you break the law by using this app, you do it with full knowledge that it is illegal (wrong by definition) and that you have no moral right to do so (you gave your word that you wouldn't do it, which you've so far failed to parse, based on your responses). If you feel justified using this application and use it, that's your decision to make. But it is still wrong by the standards set forth for you by society, and it is still illegal (because law embodies the standards established by society), and you are still responsible for any of the consequences. Period.

I mean, my goodness, what would we do if everyone thought for themselves and made up their own minds about what they would and would not do! So much better if everyone just followed the laws of the land. I mean... if it is a law then it is good and should be obeyed!!!
That's exactly how people act. People make up their own minds about what to do. When people make a decision that is wrong, then the law takes action against you. The law is the collective will of the people. It can be changed, and it changes all the time to reflect what people want and what is morally "right" according to society. People make the laws, and they come into being because the majority of people agree with them as morally sound and in the best interests of society. You don't get to decide what rules to follow and which to break without facing consequences, and you cannot claim otherwise. No society exists where an individualistic approach to decisionmaking replaces the rule of law. Not a single society out of the approximately 207 nations on this planet. Zero. All of them have laws, because your "everyone choose for himself!" approach DOES NOT WORK. It never has. History has no support for moral relativism.

You, my friend, have argued yourself into a corner. You say we should not break laws but you willingly break them when it suits you. Why is that OK for you but not for me? I have said from the start: Do what you feel. Learn the law and the consequences for breaking it. But at the end of the day, make up your own mind about right and wrong... and follow it.
You are misrepresenting everything I've said. I'm in no corner, except the one that you've built in your head. What you believe is morally right is in conflict with the law. Your decision to break the law is by definition wrong. You can continue to do what suits you, but it does not change the fact that it is against the law and that you can be punished for doing it.

Convince me of why it is wrong to break this law... but do not try to tell me that by breaking it I am doing something wrong. Illegal, yes. But since when is doing something illegal morally wrong?
Hello? Anyone in there? A law is a social contract. You abide by the laws of the land, and when you break them, you are doing something that you are not supposed to do. That is wrong. That is the definition of wrong. "Since when is doing something illegal morally wrong?" Since the beginning of society. Breaking the law and breaking your agreement with iTunes are both wrong. In this case, there's no way to construe it as right. In other extreme cases (you know, those ones in history you're so fond of citing without any specific references), it can be justified ("right"), but it is still at the same time wrong. Right and wrong are not mutually exclusive. That's all there is to it, and breaking the law is ALWAYS wrong. If you choose to do it anyway, based on your personal beliefs, understand that you must be prepared to accept the consequences for doing something society has decided is wrong. These consequences are yours to face completely independently of what you feel about your actions.

i_am_a_cow

Mar 21, 2005, 08:14 PM

DVD Jon might want his iTunes on Linux, but he has no right to it.

He has a right to play his music on a totally legitimate platform, and Apple needs to somehow make the format usable on other mainstream computing platforms.

Also, the reason why there aren't linux Airport drivers is because Broadcom has the hardware specs CLOSED. No one is able to write drivers for the airport card except for Apple and Broadcom, because it is closed. It's not my fault. It's not the fault of knowledgeable people anxious and ready to write drivers. It's the fault of Apple/Broadcom. There is a "petitiononline.com" petition on this issue with 11,000 signatures, including my own.

People don't realize that Linux is a real platform. People who buy copies of music meant to play on computers don't want them to be restricted from a platform that they spend much of their time on. This is not FAIR for the people who buy music and use Linux. Now do you understand the meaning of "Fair" as Jon uses it?

matticus008

Mar 21, 2005, 08:25 PM

He has a right to play his music on a totally legitimate platform, and Apple needs to somehow make the format usable on other mainstream computing platforms.

Also, the reason why there aren't linux Airport drivers is because Broadcom has the hardware specs CLOSED. No one is able to write drivers for the airport card except for Apple and Broadcom, because it is closed. It's not my fault. It's not the fault of knowledgeable people anxious and ready to write drivers. It's the fault of Apple/Broadcom. There is a "petitiononline.com" petition on this issue with 11,000 signatures, including my own.

People don't realize that Linux is a real platform. People who buy copies of music meant to play on computers don't want them to be restricted from a platform that they spend much of their time on. This is not FAIR for the people who buy music and use Linux. Now do you understand the meaning of "Fair" as Jon uses it?

You didn't buy a copy of a song that works with Linux. That's your fault. It would be ideal if FairPlay worked with everything, but it doesn't. No one has any obligation to make it that way, either. You have the obligation of buying something that works with your hardware and software. That's "fair." Apple has no obligation to make its products work with platforms that it chooses not to support.

You don't have the legal right to play iTunes music on Linux systems. If you want to listen to music on iTunes, there are legal ways to do it. Use them.

geniusj

Mar 21, 2005, 08:28 PM

You didn't buy a copy of a song that works with Linux. That's your fault. It would be ideal if FairPlay worked with everything, but it doesn't. No one has any obligation to make it that way, either. You have the obligation of buying something that works with your hardware and software. That's "fair." Apple has no obligation to make its products work with platforms that it chooses not to support.

You don't have the legal right to play iTunes music on Linux systems. If you want to listen to music on iTunes, there are legal ways to do it. Use them.

Your point throughout this thread seems to have been that unwrapping these files is illegal and therefore a risk. No ****. Why complicate your point so much?

matticus008

Mar 21, 2005, 08:37 PM

Your point throughout this thread seems to have been that unwrapping these files is illegal and therefore a risk. No ****. Why complicate your point so much?
It's not complicated. It's because people feel they are entitled to things that they aren't, and because people pretend that it's somehow okay to break the law at will (which is the exact reason why there is DRM, and why people who are trying to use music legitimately are having problems--thereby affecting *ME*), and worst of all, that don't believe they are breaking any laws. Why not ask these people pushing fallacious arguments and justifications what gives them the right to do this? Why attempt to justify something so blatantly wrong on so many levels?

dragonsbane

Mar 21, 2005, 11:19 PM

Your actions are driven by morals and your understanding of the law and consequences for breaking the law.
Your actions are driven by morals and your understanding of the law and consequences for breaking the law.
People make up their own minds about what to do.
You can continue to do what suits you, but it does not change the fact that it is against the law and that you can be punished for doing it.
If you choose to do it anyway, based on your personal beliefs, understand that you must be prepared to accept the consequences for doing something society has decided is wrong.
Thank you. I could not have said it better myself. Now what was your point again since you just stated mine almost verbatim? Oh, right, don't use this app because it is wrong to break laws. I agree - if you break a law you are doing something wrong. But you just proved the larger issue which is - do what you want and be prepared for the consequences. All humans should do what they want. All humans should think for themselves. No one should ever be led by "the law". Do not abdicate your responsibility as a human to think for yourself. If you do not agree with a law - and do not mind the consequences if you get caught - then you should not follow it. Period. Never follow a law just because it is a law.

Yup, I see you now agree with my position. Thank you. It is all so clear now =)

To make this even more clear to you: I do not agree with DRM and see no reason to be bound by it. Just because some silly law has been passed by people who want to make money does not mean I feel obligated to abide by it. So you know what? I will not! And if I get locked away or fined, well then I will deal with that. I applaud DVD Jon for breaking this foolish lock. I hope he opens the new one as well (and fixes jhymn while he is at it). I support him all the way. He is doing this world a fine service. Let the info flow...

matticus008

Mar 21, 2005, 11:51 PM

Thank you. I could not have said it better myself. Now what was your point again since you just stated mine almost verbatim? Oh, right, don't use this app because it is wrong to break laws. I agree - if you break a law you are doing something wrong. But you just proved the larger issue which is - do what you want and be prepared for the consequences. All humans should do what they want. All humans should think for themselves. No one should ever be led by "the law". Do not abdicate your responsibility as a human to think for yourself. If you do not agree with a law - and do not mind the consequences if you get caught - then you should not follow it. Period. Never follow a law just because it is a law.

Yup, I see you now agree with my position. Thank you. It is all so clear now =)

Well then, there you go. As long as we're all clear that it is against the law and you're aware of that, that's all there is to it. Aside, of course, from the morality of breaking the law when you don't have cause to or breaking your word.

saltysea@mac.co

Mar 22, 2005, 03:26 AM

Now that Apple has released a patch in the form of security update that as a part of it effectively blocks DVD Jon's app, maybe the discussion should turn to how to rip DRM out of a file. I'm no programmer, but it seems to me that since a music file is just a song in code, it should be possible to develop a program that can scan one's music library, and rips the DRM code from the file itself, meaning all of your music whether mp3, aac, etc? This would be far easier (in theory) than developing a program that circumvents iTunes DRM adding code, only to have it blocked, the natural course of action from Apple in order to keep on the side of the DRM law...
Don't even start with me about legalities. Remember mix tapes? When one buys something, it is theirs, not for lease with conditions. I am no pirate, and deserve the right to share something in the public domain with friends if I paid for it.

matticus008

Mar 22, 2005, 04:53 AM

eric_n_dfw

Mar 22, 2005, 08:31 AM

Now that Apple has released a patch in the form of security update that as a part of it effectively blocks DVD Jon's app, maybe the discussion should turn to how to rip DRM out of a file. I'm no programmer, but it seems to me that since a music file is just a song in code, it should be possible to develop a program that can scan one's music library, and rips the DRM code from the file itself, meaning all of your music whether mp3, aac, etc? This would be far easier (in theory) than developing a program that circumvents iTunes DRM adding code, only to have it blocked, the natural course of action from Apple in order to keep on the side of the DRM law...It's called Hymm (or JHymm or something) and it's been rendered broken since iTunes 4.7 apparently.

If DRM was so easy to remove, there would be a ton of tools to do it already.

Just burn it to a CD and re-rip it or import the song into iMovie and export the audio as another format. Those are the "supported" ways Apple has provided to do this. An interprising person could probably write an AppleScript program to automate this. (speaking of which, I wonder if the OS X 10.4 "Automator" tool could do that!)

geniusj

Mar 22, 2005, 10:07 AM

It's called Hymm (or JHymm or something) and it's been rendered broken since iTunes 4.7 apparently.
Hymn works fine with iTunes 4.7. People who upgraded to 4.7 without first 'scrubbing' their hymned m4a files had some trouble, however (nothing that isn't fixable, just an annoyance).

stevez

Mar 22, 2005, 10:23 AM

Who buys mp3s anyways? especially through apple. They make crap software and crap hardware. Why not buy something you can customize and dump that teal piece of trash out of a window.

the Rebel

Mar 22, 2005, 10:31 AM

Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.

But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.

Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else.

So if my morality tells me that it is right for me to kill you, then you support my choice to do so?

First you say that breaking the law is wrong. That is why we should not use this app to download songs from the iTMS.
Breaking the DRM is wrong regardless of whether or not it is against the law. The fact that it is also against the law only compounds the wrongness.

Then someone pokes in and shouts "If I want to murder you will you defend my right to do that?" I answer that I respect your desire to unwrap DRM and to murder me.. In both cases, you are subject to the laws of the land.
You may not have liked my question, but there was no shouting. Also, if you are going to quote someone, then you should actually quote them rather than paraphrase. The question had nothing whatsoever to do with defending my rights and I did not use the word "murder."

I asked you if you would support my choice to kill you.

It is hypocritical for you to say it is OK to speed but not grab a tune using this app. You might not want to use this app, but that is just you. You are a SPEEDER for crying out loud. Our society is about to fall apart because you break the law "when you choose". UUUGH! The horror of it all.

I mean, my goodness, what would we do if everyone thought for themselves and made up their own minds about what they would and would not do! So much better if everyone just followed the laws of the land. I mean... if it is a law then it is good and should be obeyed!!!
I know that your position is quite weak and indefensible, but can you at least try to refrain from misrepresenting the statements that others have made.

No one said that it was OK to speed, but wrong to violate the DRM. Both are wrong, but you seem to think both are OK.

If everyone broke the law whenever it suited them, then our society would indeed fall apart.

No one said that all laws were good. When there is a bad law then you should work to change the law. The fact that there are some bad laws does not justify ignoring all laws.

You, my friend, have argued yourself into a corner. You say we should not break laws but you willingly break them when it suits you. Why is that OK for you but not for me? I have said from the start: Do what you feel. Learn the law and the consequences for breaking it. But at the end of the day, make up your own mind about right and wrong... and follow it.
He never said it was OK for him to break the law. You are the one who said it is OK to break the law. He said it was wrong.

Convince me of why it is wrong to break this law... but do not try to tell me that by breaking it I am doing something wrong. Illegal, yes. But since when is doing something illegal morally wrong?
According to your philosophy it would seem that nothing is ever morally wrong for an amoral person.

geniusj

Mar 22, 2005, 10:54 AM

Breaking the DRM is wrong regardless of whether or not it is against the law.
How do you figure? The second that file hits my computer, it's mine. So long as it stays on my hardware, I will do whatever I like with it. I will compress it, unwrap it, move bytes around, change the album art to ******, whatever I want.

I am following the spirit of the law. Meaning, that I am not doing anything that their DRM wrapper is designed to prevent.

The fact that you and a couple of others can turn this into a moral crusade is mind boggling to me.
The fact that it is also against the law only compounds the wrongness.
So Sue Me (http://www.nanocrew.net/)

No one said that it was OK to speed, but wrong to violate the DRM. Both are wrong, but you seem to think both are OK.
How can you turn the speeding thing around on him? He was referencing something that someone else said. And by this someone's actions, he is giving the message that speeding is OK and unwrapping a file is wrong. That is exactly the message is he conveying.
If everyone broke the law whenever it suited them, then our society would indeed fall apart.
People do this all the time. Speeding is an example, jay walking is an example, and piracy is another example. People will assess whether they should break a law based on their risk of getting caught. That's how humans work.

No one said that all laws were good. When there is a bad law then you should work to change the law. The fact that there are some bad laws does not justify ignoring all laws.
I can 100% guarantee you that there are laws that you break on a regular basis. Why do you ignore them?
He never said it was OK for him to break the law. You are the one who said it is OK to break the law. He said it was wrong.
If "he" is who i think "he" is, then "he" said that he speeds on occasion. Maybe he doesn't think it's OK, but he does it anyway. So his thoughts on the matter are irrelevant since they are obviously not strong enough to prevent him from doing it.

According to your philosophy it would seem that nothing is ever morally wrong for an amoral person.
That depends on your definition of morals. It can either be interpreted as one's own moral compass, in which case your statement would be correct. An amoral person would never find himself to be morally wrong. Society will judge the person based on their own moral compasses, which vary greatly from person to person.

matticus008

Mar 22, 2005, 11:38 AM

If "he" is who i think "he" is, then "he" said that he speeds on occasion. Maybe he doesn't think it's OK, but he does it anyway. So his thoughts on the matter are irrelevant since they are obviously not strong enough to prevent him from doing it.
No, they are not irrelevant. Doing something you know is wrong is not the same as doing something you know is wrong and pretending that it's NOT wrong to do. I said that if you know the law, know the consequences, know that you are breaking your OWN WORD, know that there are legal way to address your concerns, and you still CHOOSE to break the law because it's more convenient for you, that's your choice. It is not a correct choice, but it was your informed decision. That's why society steps in when you make bad calls. If it wasn't wrong to break society's rules, they wouldn't punish you for doing it.

And FYI, it has been proven time and again that you do not own the file. That's it.

This is all I have to say about this:
("You" is used in the general sense for "an individual" in the following.)

It comes down to this. The law says you can't bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM. The law also says that you are allowed to use this music in accordance with your fair use rights and in accordance to the terms set forth by the purchase agreement. The law does not say that you OWN the music (only the right to use it and any physical matter that is transferred to you in the sale--NOT the music itself ) and it does not say you can reproduce it, remove copy protection, or redistribute it on your whim. The iTunes Terms of Service state themselves that you will not circumvent the DRM that comes with the music you buy, that you will use your purchased music in compliance with the DRM that it comes with, and that you will use iTunes alone to access the Music Store.

Using PyMusique is a clear and non-debatable violation of the iTunes Terms of Service, which are legally binding in a civil case. It is furthermore a violation of the DMCA, a law (whether you like it or not), which states that you cannot mess with DRM, binding in a criminal case. It is also a violation of copyright law because your duplication of the file without DRM allows you to use the file in a manner inconsistent with your purchase agreement (you bought it for FairPlay-enabled devices, not for all devices that exist and have no right to use it otherwise). It is a violation of what is morally right primarily and indisputably because you *agreed* to the Terms of Service explicitly and are now [i]breaking your word. This is immoral (and would still be so even if it were not also illegal). It is also immoral to break the law to get what you want, and are not entitled to. Further, it is inappropriate and unwarranted to break the law when you have legal ways to deal with the situation which you are free to pursue.

You are confusing moral justification with rationalized justification. You are breaking the law because it's easier for you to do, not because it is the right thing to do. Historically, when people look back and see lawbreaking as "correct," it is because there were no legal methods to redress their complaints or because the legal channels had been exhausted. They knew the consequences of breaking the law and suffered them and also knew they were technically not in the right to do so. They did not merely break the law because it suited them while claiming it was morally right, as is being done here. They were not after an easier way to do something that was already allowed (and that they wanted to do the easier, illegal way), they were after gaining rights that were denied to them. They'd already taken the legals steps to protest and attempt change and exhausted them. No one is being denied rights to their own wellbeing and property here, they are merely being denied their (undeserved) freedom to abuse the property of someone else.

With regard to DRM and digital music, you have a series of legal options to accomplish your aims, which I've already stated numerous times. You can a) not buy DRM-based products, b) write letters of complaint and start (paper, authentic) petitions, c) write legislators and lobby for change in Congress, or d) sue the companies you feel are acting inappropriately or sue for the inappropriateness or illegality of the law. In this case, most people are not using legal and legitimate procedures to get their wishes, they are simply breaking the law because it is the easy thing to do. Do not confuse morals with sloth. And furthermore do not confuse your actions with the noble deeds of revolutionaries because they are not equivocable here. You are NOT entitled to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you.

geniusj

Mar 22, 2005, 12:05 PM

No, they are not irrelevant. Doing something you know is wrong is not the same as doing something you know is wrong and pretending that it's NOT wrong to do.

Are you claiming that you don't know that speeding is illegal? Because I know that under the DMCA, removing DRM is illegal. That is not true in many other countries, however (including the one where Jon Lech Johansen hails from if I'm not mistaken.) So now will you claim that his country is morally reprehensible?

matticus008

Mar 22, 2005, 12:24 PM

Are you claiming that you don't know that speeding is illegal? Because I know that under the DMCA, removing DRM is illegal. That is not true in many other countries, however (including the one where Jon Lech Johansen hails from if I'm not mistaken.) So now will you claim that his country is morally reprehensible?

I don't see where you get the idea that I'd think speeding isn't illegal. I've only said that it is several times. Whether or not the DMCA or similar legislation applies in other countries, the iTunes Terms of Service forbids tampering with it. That is legally binding, and morally unsound, wherever you happen to be. No DMCA? Okay. You've still got the iTunes TOS. No iTunes TOS in your country? That means no iTunes there, and therefore it's not an issue. But in this country, it exists and applies, period. I've already covered all this, and it would save you a lot of trouble if you would stop and think about it. His country has copyright laws, as well. Unless they also have legislation making DRM illegal, they also have the legal right as copyright holders to stipulate its presence until it is proved otherwise. It's illegal in every country, even DVD Jon's.

geniusj

Mar 22, 2005, 12:53 PM

I don't see where you get the idea that I'd think speeding isn't illegal.
I'll quote you:
Doing something you know is wrong is not the same as doing something you know is wrong and pretending that it's NOT wrong to do.
Since I know *I* wasn't pretending that what I was doing wasn't illegal, and you didn't specify who you were referring to, I assumed you were speaking of yourself.
I've only said that it is several times. Whether or not the DMCA or similar legislation applies in other countries, the iTunes Terms of Service forbids tampering with it. That is legally binding, and morally unsound, wherever you happen to be.
Click through agreements like the iTunes TOS have little to no legal foundation on which to stand. Their history has been shakey at best. It is also very possible to JLJ to have done this without never having clicked through that agreement, or even having signed up for an iTMS account. I don't even think that iTMS was even available in his country when he started.
No DMCA? Okay. You've still got the iTunes TOS.
Again, which could very well mean nothing.
No iTunes TOS in your country? That means no iTunes there, and therefore it's not an issue. But in this country, it exists and applies, period. I've already covered all this, and it would save you a lot of trouble if you would stop and think about it. His country has copyright laws, as well. Unless they also have legislation making DRM illegal, they also have the legal right as copyright holders to stipulate its presence until it is proved otherwise. It's illegal in every country, even DVD Jon's.
That is not a right for the copyright holder under copyright law. Prior to the DMCA, it was perfectly legal to do as he's doing. If there is no DMCA equivalent in his country, then it is legal. This is how he won the DVD case.

matticus008

Mar 22, 2005, 01:07 PM

I'll quote you:

Since I know *I* wasn't pretending that what I was doing wasn't illegal, and you didn't specify who you were referring to, I assumed you were speaking of yourself.
Um, no. That's not what that says. That says that speeding is illegal and that doing it anyway is doing so, even though you know it's illegal. The latter part states, Speeding, which you know is illegal, but that you pretend isn't wrong is a different matter. Both are illegal, and both are wrong, but in the former, you accept that reality and in the latter you don't.

Click through agreements like the iTunes TOS have little to no legal foundation on which to stand.
Not true. They have every right to deactivate your account for a violation of their TOS. Do not confuse the legality of Terms of Service with the legality of stipulations within software EULAs. The EULA is legal, sometimes the contents aren't. The contents ARE legal in this case.

That is not a right for the copyright holder under copyright law. Prior to the DMCA, it was perfectly legal to do as he's doing. If there is no DMCA equivalent in his country, then it is legal. This is how he won the DVD case.
No, it wasn't. If I sell you software that has a CD key designed so that you use it with just one machine (which happened long before the DMCA), you don't have a right to remove the CD key and use the software. The copyright holder was legally protecting his or her intellectual property with the CD key, and you agreed to those terms when buying it. That was always legal, and still is. The DMCA did not change that. It didn't make that CD key removal legal, nor did it make what was previously legal illegal.

geniusj

Mar 22, 2005, 01:14 PM

Not true. They have every right to deactivate your account for a violation of their TOS. Do not confuse the legality of Terms of Service with the legality of stipulations within software EULAs. The EULA is legal, sometimes the contents aren't. The contents ARE legal in this case.

Of course, but they can deactivate your account if they're having a bad day if they want. I'll never fight against that, that's their right.

No, it wasn't. If I sell you software that has a CD key designed so that you use it with just one machine (which happened long before the DMCA), you don't have a right to remove the CD key and use the software. The copyright holder was legally protecting his or her intellectual property with the CD key, and you agreed to those terms when buying it. That was always legal, and still is. The DMCA did not change that. It didn't make that CD key removal legal, nor did it make what was previously legal illegal.
Actually, I believe that it would have been legal to remove the CD Key from software you had purchased, provided that you didn't distribute it to others, and of course that you had purchased it legally. The software developers might not like it, but it was not illegal for you to do. Under the DMCA, however, this would be illegal.

The point I've been trying to make is that there's the law, and then there's the 'spirit of the law'. The PURPOSE of the DRM on these files, is to prevent distribution of the files to others. I am not doing that, and therefore I feel that I am at least abiding by the spirit of what they are trying to accomplish. There's no reason for them to go after me or anyone else in my shoes, because we are not doing anything that their DRM is trying to prevent. Whether or not this would stand up in court is irrelevant, as it won't come to that for me or for others doing the same thing that I'm doing. If we were distributing these files after unwrapping them, there would be a problem, and therefore a greater than 0% chance that they would go after us.

I'm not sure if they'll attempt to go after Jon or not, however doing so would probably not be the best PR move on their part. Believe it or not, outside the community of mac fanatics (let's just say in the overall geek community,) he has garnered a lot of respect.

saltysea@mac.co

Mar 22, 2005, 02:35 PM

No. Just no. This is not an appropriate forum for asking for help to do something illegal. Find your answers elsewhere.

I wasn't asking for help, I have no intention of doing this, and like I said I am no programmer. I was simply brainstorming, seemed like an easier work-around. In truth, I would have no need for such software, as I share "legally" with my DRM'ed and non-DRM'ed music files, and not that often.

geniusj

Mar 22, 2005, 10:37 PM

Jon has cracked it yet again.. Shocking. That was sure worth locking out 15% of iTunes users until they upgrade.

dragonsbane

Mar 23, 2005, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by dragonsbane
Thank you. I could not have said it better myself. Now what was your point again since you just stated mine almost verbatim? Oh, right, don't use this app because it is wrong to break laws. I agree - if you break a law you are doing something wrong. But you just proved the larger issue which is - do what you want and be prepared for the consequences. All humans should do what they want. All humans should think for themselves. No one should ever be led by "the law". Do not abdicate your responsibility as a human to think for yourself. If you do not agree with a law - and do not mind the consequences if you get caught - then you should not follow it. Period. Never follow a law just because it is a law.

Yup, I see you now agree with my position. Thank you. It is all so clear now =)
Originally Posted by matticus008
Well then, there you go. As long as we're all clear that it is against the law and you're aware of that, that's all there is to it. Aside, of course, from the morality of breaking the law when you don't have cause to or breaking your word.

Originally Posted by geniusj
People do this all the time. Speeding is an example, jay walking is an example, and piracy is another example. People will assess whether they should break a law based on their risk of getting caught. That's how humans work.
Can't we all just get along? I mean for cripes sake! Humans do what they want. Breaking the law is illegal - not immoral. The more educated you are about laws, the more you will realize how many you break. Assuming that knowledge of breaking a law is what makes breaking it immoral, then learning about laws is akin to being immoral.

All I have ever said, and I believe this view is held by all but the most "law and order" hypocrites here, is that humans will always think for themselves and do what they wish. Laws are in place as guides and to let you know what society will do if they catch you breaking the law (and you do not have a good lawyer ;)

The concept that breaking the law makes you immoral is just silly. Breaking laws is illegal - it has nothing to do with morality. Morality is guided from within - not without. No other human can define my morals and I can not define morals for any one else.

How can someone else besides you define what is moral for you? Next thing you know someone will claim God defines morals and God only speaks through men who died 1,000+ years ago (or some other super conservative male like the Pope). Of course, you then have to answer the question why laws can change if they are moral. I mean, one minute the state is allowed to kill people as punishment and the next it is not. One minute women can not vote and the next they can. One minute Japan is not allowed to send troops abroad to kill people and the next they are. How can a law EVER be supreme to ones own moral compass?

http://www.daeken.com/2005/03/21/project-statement-for-pymusique - This is the blog of a friggin HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT who is working with DVD Jon to break this foolish lock. More power to the busy little group that re-unlocked iTMS in less than 24 hours.

the Rebel

Mar 23, 2005, 01:46 PM

How do you figure? The second that file hits my computer, it's mine. So long as it stays on my hardware, I will do whatever I like with it. I will compress it, unwrap it, move bytes around, change the album art to ******, whatever I want.

I am following the spirit of the law. Meaning, that I am not doing anything that their DRM wrapper is designed to prevent.

The reason why it is wrong is quite simple. Before you downloaded the file to your computer, you contractually promised that you would not remove the DRM restrictions. If you then subsequently violate that contractual promise then you have done wrong.

How can you turn the speeding thing around on him? He was referencing something that someone else said. And by this someone's actions, he is giving the message that speeding is OK and unwrapping a file is wrong.
He lied. He was NOT referencing what anyone said. He claimed that someone said it, but no one had said it.

People do this all the time. Speeding is an example, jay walking is an example, and piracy is another example. People will assess whether they should break a law based on their risk of getting caught.
That does not change the fact that it is wrong.

I can 100% guarantee you that there are laws that you break on a regular basis.
You can not guarantee any such thing. Just because some people break laws on a regular basis does not mean that everyone does.

If "he" is who i think "he" is, then "he" said that he speeds on occasion. Maybe he doesn't think it's OK, but he does it anyway.
He explicitly said that speeding in violation of the law was wrong. Yet dragonsbane stated that he had said the exact opposite.

Admitting that you have done wrong is NOT equivalent to saying that it is OK to do wrong.

latergator116

Mar 23, 2005, 03:59 PM

That does not change the fact that it is wrong.

.

When you say wrong, do you mean morally wrong or illegal?

bigpoppa

Mar 23, 2005, 09:04 PM

When you say wrong, do you mean morally wrong or illegal?

It is illegal!

latergator116

Mar 23, 2005, 09:19 PM

It is illegal!

Yes, I know it is illegal, but the question was directed at the person I quoted (the Rebel).

matticus008

Mar 24, 2005, 08:47 PM

Yes, I know it is illegal, but the question was directed at the person I quoted (the Rebel).

We've been through this. It is both illegal (which makes it wrong, period, by definition) and morally wrong. Let's see how simple it can get:

1. ALL things that are illegal are wrong (because they are illegal, and breaking a law is breaking a social contract which is going against what society has decided is right, therefore what you are doing is wrong in the eyes of society).

2. Some things are wrong that are legal ("right"). Come up with your own examples. These are things that you can do because they law doesn't stop you, but that you shouldn't do.

3. Some things that are illegal (wrong) can also be morally justified, or right. This does not change the fact that they are ALSO STILL WRONG. These are things like refusing to pay illegal taxes, refusing to comply with racist or sexist laws, or refusing to hand over your property to the government because they demand it. These are forces that cause revolutions. These are violations of human rights or autocratic regimes oppressing people financially or politically. These are NOT people who are too lazy to do things the right way, or too stubborn to accept the fact that they are not entitled to free reign over the property of others, or people who don't believe in following laws. In other words, NOT DIGITAL MUSIC and NOT YOU.

There. Now you have it. All things that are illegal are wrong. They are wrong because of the definition of illegal. This is not open to interpretation or debate, it is a basic premise of society. Things that are wrong are not limited to things that are illegal, and things that are legal are not always entirely right, from a moral point of view. Occasionally, there have been instances where breaking the law (an action known and accepted as wrong) has been required to accomplish the goals of a repressed or controlled society. These actions were not undertaken lightly, nor were they unpunished, and no one broke the law simply because they wanted to or it was easier (like is being done with this issue).

Aside from the law, these actions are morally corrupt because you made an agreement to honor the terms of the iTunes Music Store. Forgetting about any applicable laws, you, as a free, thinking human being, gave your honor-bound word that you would not tamper with DRM and that you would only get your iTunes music from iTMS and the iTunes interface. You are now actively breaking that promise. That's how this is STILL WRONG, even if you want to disregard the laws.

You have no loophole and no moral ground for breaking the laws pertaining to your use of digital music. If you choose to do it anyway, do it knowing that you are WRONG and BREAKING THE LAW. Don't try to pretend that it's justified somehow, because it is not. Don't argue that this is not the case, because if this is a cause you truly believe in, you would have taken the legal and morally right steps to solving the problem. You have not done so, and merely want the easy way out, and disregarding the law is the easiest way to get what you want.

latergator116

Mar 24, 2005, 09:19 PM

We've been through this. It is both illegal (which makes it wrong, period, by definition) and morally wrong. Let's see how simple it can get:

1. ALL things that are illegal are wrong (because they are illegal, and breaking a law is breaking a social contract which is going against what society has decided is right, therefore what you are doing is wrong in the eyes of society)...

Maybe my definition of morals is different from yours. Even though jay-walking is illegal, I see nothing morally wrong with it (as long as it is done safely).

matticus008

Mar 24, 2005, 09:40 PM

Maybe my definition of morals is different from yours. Even though jay-walking is illegal, I see nothing morally wrong with it (as long as it is done safely).
That may be, and from your perspective it might be sufficient. However, your personal morals are not the only grounds of moral assessment. You must still comply with group morality (society), which ultimately has power over you. Group morality is the baseline, not individual morality.

Individual morality stops at the point where the decision is made and executed. The ramifications, effects, and consequences of that action then enter the realm of group morality, on which your decisions are judged. If you feel morally justified to do something which society has decided is wrong, you are judged to be immoral (even when you don't agree). Carjackers, for instance, may not feel immoral about their actions, but their moral judgment is not the defining characteristic we look to.

Doctor Q

Mar 24, 2005, 09:54 PM

Dictionaries offer various meanings for the word "wrong", and since different posters rely on different meanings, either a dictionary meaning or one of their own interpretation, I think it is of little use to argue about whether using PyMusique is "wrong".

Sherlock tells me that "wrong" could mean
* not in conformity with fact or truth
* contrary to conscience or morality or law
* not appropriate for a purpose or occasion
* not conforming with accepted standards of propriety or taste
etc.

Even if we agreed on one of these definitions for the sake of discussion, we're left with "conscience" and "morality" and "law" and "accepted standards", all of which vary among people, communities, and countries.

I'm still interesting in hearing what people have to say about legal, technical, business, and societal issues to do with PyMusique and digital rights management, but I hope we can move on from "right" vs. "wrong".

latergator116

Mar 24, 2005, 09:54 PM

That may be, and from your perspective it might be sufficient. However, your personal morals are not the only grounds of moral assessment. You must still comply with group morality (society), which ultimately has power over you. Group morality is the baseline, not individual morality.

Individual morality stops at the point where the decision is made and executed. The ramifications, effects, and consequences of that action then enter the realm of group morality, on which your decisions are judged. If you feel morally justified to do something which society has decided is wrong, you are judged to be immoral (even when you don't agree). Carjackers, for instance, may not feel immoral about their actions, but their moral judgment is not the defining characteristic we look to.

If I decide to break a law that does not affect anyone other than myself, then I have all the moral right to do that. (e.g. jay-walking, downloading programs that I wouldn't normally buy, etc.) I know I am taking a risk by breaking certain laws, but I take full responsibility if caught.

latergator116

Mar 24, 2005, 10:09 PM

I'm still interesting in hearing what people have to say about legal, technical, business, and societal issues to do with PyMusique and digital rights management, but I hope we can move on from "right" vs. "wrong".

Personally, I don't like the restricitions of DRM, so I think PyMusique is a very usefull program. The record industries should'nt assume people are going to use the music illegaly. I mean, if someone wanted to get a song with out all the limitations of DRM, they could easily use limewire. Legaly, the person that created the program has done nothing wrong, so I don't see how Apple or the RIAA could come up with a lawsuit. Quick question, do most CD's have DRM protection or is it just music from the iTMS?

matticus008

Mar 24, 2005, 10:18 PM

If I decide to break a law that does not affect anyone other than myself, then I have all the moral right to do that. (e.g. jay-walking, downloading programs that I wouldn't normally buy, etc.) I know I am taking a risk by breaking certain laws, but I will take full responsibility if caught.
I don't really think there's all that much to discuss about jaywalking (it's a law for public safety, and a good one as you know if you live in a major city where jaywalkers regularly get hit), and downloading programs (whether you'd pay for them or not) does still hurt other people. Even if the authors aren't losing out on sales (which they are, because the number of programs in use vs. the number of licenses sold becomes disproportionate), the scale of piracy has made it so that legitimate users have to put up with increasingly burdensome measures to use and maintain software that they are using in full compliance with license agreements and laws.

Now, since the moderator has made a very good point about sticking to technical and legal aspects of this conversation, I can take a seat because there's not much to say that hasn't been said. Everyone has already accepted that this software is unlawful (but now will probably try to come up with reasons it isn't, since the right/wrong issue has now been closed). If we could have a constructive conversation about DRM and getting cross-compatibility with players, then there would be more material to discuss. DRM is a reality we have to accept for years of unrestricted piracy and technological exploitation, now let's focus on getting it to work for us and allowing people more flexibility without lessening the security.

matticus008

Mar 24, 2005, 10:24 PM

Personally, I don't like the restricitions of DRM, so I think PyMusique is a very usefull program. The record industries should'nt assume people are going to use the music illegaly. I mean, if someone wanted to get a song with out all the limitations of DRM, they could easily use limewire. Legaly, the person that created the program has done nothing wrong, so I don't see how Apple or the RIAA could come up with a lawsuit. Quick question, do most CD's have DRM protection or is it just music from the iTMS?
No, CDs don't have DRM. Some have copy protection, which is designed to prevent customers from extracting the digital audio from the disc to create WAV or compressed audio files. As for the creator of the software, it's up to the courts to decide whether or not he's broken the law in accordance with his country and any applicable international laws. This isn't as simple a case as his DeCSS work. As far as using the software in the United States, it is indeed unlawful. The record companies work under the assumption that they are going to lose some sales to piracy. All companies work under this model. They implemented DRM to work like those beeper things at the doors of retail stores. Sometimes they go off when you've done nothing wrong, and some shoplifters will still get past the system, but it cuts down on theft considerably. Was it illegal for stores to put in those scanners? Should they have trusted their customers more?

EDIT: And you've already indicated that you understand that PyMusique was illegal earlier in the thread, so doesn't that prove the RIAA's position on the matter? People ARE attempting to circumvent the laws, so PyMusique is exactly the sort of reason for increased protection of digital content.

latergator116

Mar 25, 2005, 09:04 AM

No, CDs don't have DRM. Some have copy protection, which is designed to prevent customers from extracting the digital audio from the disc to create WAV or compressed audio files. As for the creator of the software, it's up to the courts to decide whether or not he's broken the law in accordance with his country and any applicable international laws. This isn't as simple a case as his DeCSS work. As far as using the software in the United States, it is indeed unlawful. The record companies work under the assumption that they are going to lose some sales to piracy. All companies work under this model. They implemented DRM to work like those beeper things at the doors of retail stores. Sometimes they go off when you've done nothing wrong, and some shoplifters will still get past the system, but it cuts down on theft considerably. Was it illegal for stores to put in those scanners? Should they have trusted their customers more?

EDIT: And you've already indicated that you understand that PyMusique was illegal earlier in the thread, so doesn't that prove the RIAA's position on the matter? People ARE attempting to circumvent the laws, so PyMusique is exactly the sort of reason for increased protection of digital content.

In my previous post I said the person that created the program has not broken the law. And yes, I realize peolpe who use this program are breaking the law.

dragonsbane

Mar 25, 2005, 10:49 PM

the scale of piracy has made it so that legitimate users have to put up with increasingly burdensome measures to use...
This makes no sense (but then again, neither does DRM). If people can pirate an app (and get a stolen serial) then the logical outcome is for application developers to stop requiring serial numbers. Instead, most non-open-source companies put more restrictions rather than less. What is this point? If people want to use your app without paying you, they will. Full stop.

Just look at the most popular collection of apps (Windows OS) and see what all their restrictions have produced. Placing restrictions simply hurts legitimate customers. If companies were responsive, they would put fewer restrictions rather than more.

"I have legally acquired this application"

Require people to type that before you app installs. Your legit folks will be happy and those that got it illegally will use it anyway.

More so with music. I mean, come on. If someone wanted to send out the best quality files to the internet they simply purchase a single CD and convert it. The online versions are of inferior quality to begin with.

matticus008

Mar 25, 2005, 11:31 PM

This makes no sense (but then again, neither does DRM). If people can pirate an app (and get a stolen serial) then the logical outcome is for application developers to stop requiring serial numbers. Instead, most non-open-source companies put more restrictions rather than less. What is this point? If people want to use your app without paying you, they will. Full stop.
So in your world, there are no ink-blot tags on clothes, the bank never asks you for photo ID, and there are no passwords on anything. I mean, obviously people will try to steal things or pretend to be other people or attempt to access the data of others, so then why bother protecting it at all? The pirates will always win, so give up and go home? No. Measures that help keep costs low by limiting theft are a reasonable inconvenience. It would be a lot faster if I didn't need to find my passport when I travel to other countries (like I am now) or if I didn't have to remember any passwords for anything, but the cost of doing that would be the complete destruction of all of my personal assets and the exploitation of my identity.

The logical outcome is not to stop the restrictions when they aren't successful enough, but to add more restrictions. Maybe an introductory logic class would be of some assistance in illustrating this.

"I have legally acquired this application"

Require people to type that before you app installs. Your legit folks will be happy and those that got it illegally will use it anyway.
How is this different from a CD key or requiring a user ID and password to authorize your music library? You are asking users to type something in prior to using an application they've bought. It's a more direct statement than agreeing on the EULA (which almost always says that you are affirming your legitimate ownership of the software) and then entering the CD key, yes, and maybe it should be added to existing measures like reg codes and CD keys. Obviously it won't replace them, because it provides absolutely no security. Clearly, people are not to be trusted at their own word. It would only make it easier for pirates, who already have it too easy.