PDA

View Full Version : Roxio forbids iTunes song burning


MacBytes
May 12, 2005, 01:24 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Roxio forbids iTunes song burning (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050512022437)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

redAPPLE
May 12, 2005, 01:50 AM
as long as Toast 6.0.7 (or whatever version was last released before 6.1) works with Tiger, there should not be any problems.

the reason escapes me, why Apple does not want that to happen.

efoto
May 12, 2005, 02:00 AM
Why would Roxio do that with retail music content? I could perhaps understand if they somehow could differentiate between purchased music (either from iTMS or ripped from retail CD) and ''purchased'' music :rolleyes: , but to restrict this seems silly.

Abstract
May 12, 2005, 02:37 AM
It says "after discussion with Apple," meaning you may not be able to blame Roxio for this entirely. Its probably due to Apple as well.

Kagetenshi
May 12, 2005, 03:17 AM
My guess is that Toast doesn't follow the maximum-playlist-burn restrictions and thus opens everything back up to easy mass-production of CDs.

Since there are versions that will never be eradicated from the internet during any meaningful timespan that can do this, I'm not sure why they bothered, but it makes sense and is in no way "evil".

~J

efoto
May 12, 2005, 03:43 AM
It says "after discussion with Apple," meaning you may not be able to blame Roxio for this entirely. Its probably due to Apple as well.

I did say Roxio solely, but I was thinking Apple as well, my mistake.

Still, if you are paying to purchase a retail copy of a song, why would the parties invovle make it more difficult for you to burn your own legitimate music? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but whatever.

Lacero
May 12, 2005, 03:46 AM
I prefer to burn music in iTunes anyway. Toast is great for making hybrid discs and multisessions. Now if Toast can only support the 5 burns per playlist restriction.

Bob Knob
May 12, 2005, 03:57 AM
Still, if you are paying to purchase a retail copy of a song, why would the parties invovle make it more difficult for you to burn your own legitimate music? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but whatever.

Not to pick on you, but, no one owns music that they didn't write. This is the way it has always been... including the vinyl days.
When you buy music (even on a CD) you are in fact buying a license that carries specific terms of use, the iTunes Music Store (just like other download stores) has its own terms that are different than that of a CD.

It seams that no one ever really gave these terms of usage much thought until the online music stores got rolling.

efoto
May 12, 2005, 04:01 AM
Not to pick on you, but, no one owns music that they didn't write. This is the way it has always been... including the vinyl days.
When you buy music (even on a CD) you are in fact buying a license that carries specific terms of use, the iTunes Music Store (just like other download stores) has its own terms that are different than that of a CD.

It seams that no one ever really gave these terms of usage much thought until the online music stores got rolling.

I don't take it as picking on me, I really don't know. I figured that if you paid for music (or a movie, etc) that you had the ability to make personal copies with the stipulation that you not distribute them or profit from them. I could very well be wrong, but that was the premis I have been operating off of for some time.

How does the license from iTMS differ from that of a CD? What is the basic license of a CD?

Peterkro
May 12, 2005, 04:15 AM
I doubt it's Apple behind this, indirectly it'll be the record companies and the R**A.

efoto
May 12, 2005, 06:26 AM
I doubt it's Apple behind this, indirectly it'll be the record companies and the R**A.

That would make me wonder why they are doing it even more. The R//A was on a huge trip about legitimacy in the music industry and sales of albums vs. downloads. iTMS is distributing legitimate product that they charge for, and I assume the artists get paid for as it should be, just as by way of CD.

Whether the consumer prefers to purchase a digital file or a tangible one from a B&M store, the main concern was that of monetary exchange and distribution to the artists and parties involved in producing the product. iTMS has a ton of sales, why limit something that was such a hit for the music industry?

mainstreetmark
May 12, 2005, 07:31 AM
Not to pick on you, but, no one owns music that they didn't write. This is the way it has always been... including the vinyl days.
When you buy music (even on a CD) you are in fact buying a license that carries specific terms of use, the iTunes Music Store (just like other download stores) has its own terms that are different than that of a CD.

It seams that no one ever really gave these terms of usage much thought until the online music stores got rolling.

Really?

In all my CD's and a few albums, I never recall reading a license agreement, having a license agreement read to me or signing anything that legally states I don't actually own what i just bought.

Perhaps they started to put them on those stupid stickers that covers the spine of the CD which suck to get off, because I never read that crap anyways.

SiliconAddict
May 12, 2005, 07:58 AM
"Following discussions with Apple, this version will no longer allow customers to create audio CDs, audio DVDs, or export audio to their hard drive using purchased iTunes music store content."

[Sarcasm=1]
My love for Apple is growing by leaps and bounds. I mean between suing everyone in sight, and this kind of crap what's not to love about this company?


[/Sarcasm=0]

SiliconAddict
May 12, 2005, 08:00 AM
Why would Roxio do that with retail music content?


Because Apple tapped them on the shoulder and said do it. Do you think a company would intentionally take features OUT of a product if it was a major selling point? Bet a paycheck that Micr....sorry Apple leaned on them to do this.

efoto
May 12, 2005, 08:11 AM
Because Apple tapped them on the shoulder and said do it. Do you think a company would intentionally take features OUT of a product if it was a major selling point? Bet a paycheck that Micr....sorry Apple leaned on them to do this.

Apparently I am missing something incredibly obvious....
So why would Apple want Roxio to disable that feature? How is it affecting Apple in any way to have Roxio software able to burn music purchased from the iTMS?

Be as blunt as you like, I won't take offense. I quite obviously just don't understand :confused:

Gasu E.
May 12, 2005, 08:18 AM
Really?

In all my CD's and a few albums, I never recall reading a license agreement, having a license agreement read to me or signing anything that legally states I don't actually own what i just bought.

Perhaps they started to put them on those stupid stickers that covers the spine of the CD which suck to get off, because I never read that crap anyways.

THere's no need for a license agreement. There are copyright marks all over the packaging. It's your legal responsibility to understand what those mean in terms of your rights.

jkhanson
May 12, 2005, 08:35 AM
Apparently I am missing something incredibly obvious....
So why would Apple want Roxio to disable that feature? How is it affecting Apple in any way to have Roxio software able to burn music purchased from the iTMS?

Be as blunt as you like, I won't take offense. I quite obviously just don't understand :confused:

Just because it is an easy way to get around restrictions imposed on the number of times a playlist can be burned. Apple is just doing what it needs to do to live up to its agreement with the record companies.

jkhanson
May 12, 2005, 08:39 AM
Why would Roxio do that with retail music content? I could perhaps understand if they somehow could differentiate between purchased music (either from iTMS or ripped from retail CD) and ''purchased'' music :rolleyes: , but to restrict this seems silly.

Read the story more carefully. The statement from Roxio says, "this version will no longer allow customers to create audio CDs, audio DVDs, or export audio to their hard drive using purchased iTunes music store content."

In other words, there is no restriction on music from retail CDs. There must be something in the new Toast software that looks for Fairplay DRM in a file and restricts those songs.

7on
May 12, 2005, 08:46 AM
Apparently I am missing something incredibly obvious....
So why would Apple want Roxio to disable that feature? How is it affecting Apple in any way to have Roxio software able to burn music purchased from the iTMS?

Be as blunt as you like, I won't take offense. I quite obviously just don't understand :confused:


Because Toast creates temp .aiff files of compressed music before burning an audio CD. People have been intercepting these and using them to pirate the music.

jkhanson
May 12, 2005, 08:47 AM
[Sarcasm=1]
My love for Apple is growing by leaps and bounds. I mean between suing everyone in sight, and this kind of crap what's not to love about this company?
[/Sarcasm=0]

Not such a big deal really. Burn a CD from iTunes and then use Roxio Toast to copy the CD as many times as you like. Once a file is AIFF, there's no way for Toast to tell the difference, right?

mkubal
May 12, 2005, 08:52 AM
Just because it is an easy way to get around restrictions imposed on the number of times a playlist can be burned. Apple is just doing what it needs to do to live up to its agreement with the record companies.

Of course you could still burn it once in iTunes and then duplicate it as many times as you want to with toast.

I'm not saying I agree with the dropping of the feature, but is there any non-shady reason that someone would need to burn iTunes songs in Toast? Maybe some extra options?

johnnowak
May 12, 2005, 08:56 AM
I still cannot believe you are all so willing to fork over $10 for an album with no art, lower quality, and a bunch of restrictions.

efoto
May 12, 2005, 09:04 AM
Of course you could still burn it once in iTunes and then duplicate it as many times as you want to with toast.

I'm not saying I agree with the dropping of the feature, but is there any non-shady reason that someone would need to burn iTunes songs in Toast? Maybe some extra options?

Perhaps the options are even similar, not sure, but I just prefer to use Toast as opposed to iTunes for burning anything. I like the ability and idea of Toast over iTunes....I don't know. iTunes is probably more than adequate, but Toast LOOKS like a burner, iTunes LOOKS like a player. I prefer to keep them that way, even if it is stupid.

mkubal
May 12, 2005, 09:05 AM
I still cannot believe you are all so willing to fork over $10 for an album with no art, lower quality, and a bunch of restrictions.

Off topic, and while I understand your point

1) I rarely buy entire albums
2) If I did buy a CD I would rip it into iTunes (probably 192 AAC)
3) and proceed to put the CD somewhere I would never see it again
4) I buy music for the audio, not the visuals

I understand that you probably wouldn't handle a CD the way I do, but that is why people (and I) buy stuff off of iTunes.

road dog
May 12, 2005, 09:34 AM
You're blaming the wrong people... it's Apple that you should be pissed at. They're obviously the ones who brought this upon you... why in their right mind would Roxio remove functionality from you.

And yes, this is only for purchased songs... if you rip from physicial CDs purchased in a store or at Amazon you can still burn in Toast.

It's pretty clear... sure you "own" your music when you buy it from Apple, but only if you use Apple software for burning, Apple hardware that iTunes supports, and an Apple created iPod for playing. I guess freedom of choice is gone.

Besides... Apple just wants you to stop burning anyway... they want everyone to buy shiny new iPods.

basiq
May 12, 2005, 09:57 AM
First and foremost, i do not see any problem with this. i mean, you do not need toast to burn music from itunes, you can do it straight from itunes itself.

Why Bitch for nothing, if I dont need to pay money for extra software its all good to me....

gbruner
May 12, 2005, 09:59 AM
The way I see the "discussion" going:

"So, you still won't allow Napster songs to be played on the iPod? Well, then, we will just have to stop supporting iTunes."

There was no real "discussion". It was just a lost negotiation on both sides.

Shame.

SiliconAddict
May 12, 2005, 10:36 AM
Not such a big deal really. Burn a CD from iTunes and then use Roxio Toast to copy the CD as many times as you like. Once a file is AIFF, there's no way for Toast to tell the difference, right?


Are their ways around this? No doubt. But this is suppose to be Mac OS. Windows is where hacking the system is th norm. You shouldn't need to dink around to get things to work.

jkhanson
May 12, 2005, 10:52 AM
Are their ways around this? No doubt. But this is supposed to be Mac OS. Windows is where hacking the system is the norm. You shouldn't need to dink around to get things to work.

The workaround is a method to get around the seven burn restriction. So your argument, essentially, is that we shouldn't have to dink around to break the licensing agreement. Apple has no obligation to make that easy.

Besides, compared to Microsoft, Apple is lenient: no product keys, even on OS upgrades. The RIAA is what makes Apple stricter when it comes to music DRM.

If you don't like the licensing agreement, that's fine. Just buy retail CDs and the changes to Toast won't affect you.

nagromme
May 12, 2005, 11:04 AM
You're blaming the wrong people... it's Apple that you should be pissed at.


People are saying don't blame Roxio because it's APPLE that wants DRM to be enforced.

That's terrible logic.

It's the RIAA who wants it enforced, and THEY push that on Apple. Apple may be pushing that on Roxio, but following the chain of blame HALF way back and saying it's Apple who wants this is just not true.

IanC
May 12, 2005, 11:17 AM
[Sarcasm=1]
My love for Apple is growing by leaps and bounds. I mean between suing everyone in sight, and this kind of crap what's not to love about this company?
[/Sarcasm=0]

Oh go back to Windows..... :rolleyes:

Silencio
May 12, 2005, 11:53 AM
The way I see the "discussion" going:

"So, you still won't allow Napster songs to be played on the iPod? Well, then, we will just have to stop supporting iTunes."

Except for the fact that Roxio and Napster have absolutely nothing to do with each other anymore. Remember that Roxio sold off all of its CD burning products to Sonic Solutions and changed its own name to Napster?

I don't think Apple would care what Roxio is doing with their software unless the RIAA was breathing down their neck.

narco
May 12, 2005, 12:02 PM
Doesn't bother me. iTunes burns CD's well, plus it maintains all the artist information so I don't have to print out playlists.

I only use Roxio for video and storage burning. It's great for that.

Fishes,
narco.

Lord Bodak
May 12, 2005, 12:39 PM
The way I see the "discussion" going:

"So, you still won't allow Napster songs to be played on the iPod? Well, then, we will just have to stop supporting iTunes."

There was no real "discussion". It was just a lost negotiation on both sides.

Shame.

Ok, Napster uses protected WMA. Does anyone honestly think Microsoft, huge anti-iPod company that wants to see their choices for audio players succeed, would _ever_ allow Apple to support protected WMA on the iPod?

killmoms
May 12, 2005, 12:43 PM
Ok, Napster uses protected WMA. Does anyone honestly think Microsoft, huge anti-iPod company that wants to see their choices for audio players succeed, would _ever_ allow Apple to support protected WMA on the iPod?
Of course they would. They don't give a crap about the iPod itself, just that it doesn't play WMA content. If Apple allowed the iPod to play WMA protected, it'd mean they'd bought a license from MS to do it, which is how MS makes money. This is precisely why Apple won'tónot only are they the leading player and music store with their own format, they don't want to pay the MS WMA tax for every iPod they sell.

shamino
May 12, 2005, 02:14 PM
I prefer to burn music in iTunes anyway. Toast is great for making hybrid discs and multisessions. Now if Toast can only support the 5 burns per playlist restriction.
The problem with burning from iTunes is that iTunes doesn't let you apply CD-TEXT to the discs. Many players (like the one in my car) will display title/artist information if its on the disc.

shamino
May 12, 2005, 02:23 PM
Not to pick on you, but, no one owns music that they didn't write. This is the way it has always been... including the vinyl days.
It has never been this way, despite what the RIIA keeps saying in their press releases.

Your rights with respect to a "phonorecord" (which means CD, LP or cassette) are as defined by US copyright law. There is no concept of "license terms" here, and the copyright holders do not have the right to add additional restrictions to those specified by law.

Downloaded music is considered data (like software) and is not a "phonorecord". As such, the copyright law gives you different rights, but the copyright holders still do not have the right to add additional restrictions.

In both cases, the right to make duplicates for personal use is permitted. This is called "fair use".

DRM schemes are attempts by copyright holders to prevent you from doing what the copyright law expressly permits you to do (like make backup copies for personal use.) Laws like the DMCA make it criminal to break a DRM scheme. But neither DRM nor the DMCA cancels out your fair use rights under the copyright law.
It seams that no one ever really gave these terms of usage much thought until the online music stores got rolling.
I've been buying records, tapes and CDs for nearly 20 years. And I've read plenty of fine-print. Not one album has anything even remotely resembling a "license agreement". Copyright law, and nothing else, determines what you can and can not do with the content. RIAA claims about non-existant licenses are just scare tactics.

shamino
May 12, 2005, 02:25 PM
THere's no need for a license agreement. There are copyright marks all over the packaging. It's your legal responsibility to understand what those mean in terms of your rights.
Your fair-use rights, as defined by copyright law, are far far more liberal than what the RIAA press agents say they are.

Yvan256
May 12, 2005, 02:25 PM
I doubt it's Apple behind this, indirectly it'll be the record companies and the R**A.

Indeed, the text used was "(stops)... export audio to their hard drive using purchased iTunes music store content."

That feature allowed someone to go around the iTunes->CD->rip again method, which is something the RIAA wants to keep.

Kagetenshi
May 12, 2005, 02:27 PM
Your rights with respect to a "phonorecord" (which means CD, LP or cassette) are as defined by US copyright law. There is no concept of "license terms" here, and the copyright holders do not have the right to add additional restrictions to those specified by law.
That's false. You have no right to reproduce works of a copyright holder unless those rights are licensed to you. They may license it to you under any terms they so please.

~J

shamino
May 12, 2005, 02:52 PM
That's false. You have no right to reproduce works of a copyright holder unless those rights are licensed to you. They may license it to you under any terms they so please.
Then show me where the license agreement is on all of the hundreds of albums I've purchased over the past 20 years. There are none.

Copyright law defines a single license that applies to all "phonorecords", once they are published. Publishers are not allowed to impose additional restrictions beyond what the law specifies.

That license explicitly grants permission for many things that the RIAA doesn't want you to do. This includes duplication for personal use, publishing excerpts for the purpose of review or parody, and resale of the original content (as long as all copies are destroyed first.)

applebum
May 12, 2005, 02:55 PM
I still cannot believe you are all so willing to fork over $10 for an album with no art, lower quality, and a bunch of restrictions.

Ok - get your collection of CDs up to 300 or greater, move a couple of times, find yourself in a house with limited space, and then tell me you don't understand why someone would buy from ITMS instead of buying a CD.

Mr.Hey
May 12, 2005, 03:09 PM
It says "after discussion with Apple," meaning you may not be able to blame Roxio for this entirely. Its probably due to Apple as well.

:rolleyes:

Stop jumping to conlusions.

Bob Knob
May 12, 2005, 03:22 PM
It has never been this way, despite what the RIIA keeps saying in their press releases.
-snip-
I've been buying records, tapes and CDs for nearly 20 years. And I've read plenty of fine-print. Not one album has anything even remotely resembling a "license agreement". Copyright law, and nothing else, determines what you can and can not do with the content. RIAA claims about non-existant licenses are just scare tactics.

Sorry, but you are wrong.
And you just pointed out the classic example why people don't understand that the don't "own" any music they didn't write themselves... (Not one album has anything even remotely resembling a "license agreement")... There is a copyright symbol on the disc or the packaging, when you buy the discs you agree to the terms of the license by default. There are a few (very few) exemptions when it comes to "Public Domain" works, but even those still have restrictions.

BTW, that house you own... guess what... you don't own the land under it either (might be different outside the US).

shamino
May 12, 2005, 03:23 PM
Copyright law defines a single license that applies to all "phonorecords", once they are published. Publishers are not allowed to impose additional restrictions beyond what the law specifies.

That license explicitly grants permission for many things that the RIAA doesn't want you to do. This includes duplication for personal use, publishing excerpts for the purpose of review or parody, and resale of the original content (as long as all copies are destroyed first.)
Since repetition is going to get us nowhere, please direct your attention here (http://www.digitalproducer.com/2001/09_sep/features/09_24/cdlaw3.htm).

Section 106 (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html) of the copyright act is what gives copyright holders the right to make duplicates.

Fair use is defined in section 107 (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html) which allows duplication for some specific purposes, including news reporting, commentary, criticism and teaching.

Section 108 (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000108----000-.html) allows libraries to make archival copies.

Section 117 (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html) allows you to make backup copies of software (but not music.)

Left to just this, you might get the impression that you're not allowed to copy your own CDs or make a mix-tape for the car. However, the Audio Home Recording Act (http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm) says in section 1008 (emphasis mine):
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Meaning that you can not be prosecuted for making copies of music for personal use. The law does not distinguish between analog, digital or download media.

So can we finally drop all this nonsense about music having legally-enforceable licenses? There is no such thing (at least in the US.) The whole reason why copyright holders are all gung-ho about DRM is because they want a technical mechanism for enforcing rights that the law does not grant them.

shamino
May 12, 2005, 03:33 PM
And you just pointed out the classic example why people don't understand that the don't "own" any music they didn't write themselves... (Not one album has anything even remotely resembling a "license agreement")... There is a copyright symbol on the disc or the packaging, when you buy the discs you agree to the terms of the license by default.
The copyright symbol is meaningless. Copyright is automatically assigned to the creator of a work with or without this symbol. It exists solely as a reminder to the purchaser, but changes nothing.

Your rights and the rights of the author and publisher are as defined by US law, which is not a license and is not defined by the work's publisher.

Bob Knob
May 12, 2005, 03:43 PM
The copyright symbol is meaningless. Copyright is automatically assigned to the creator of a work with or without this symbol. It exists solely as a reminder to the purchaser, but changes nothing.

Your rights and the rights of the author and publisher are as defined by US law, which is not a license and is not defined by the work's publisher.

Ok, I'm done. You really don't understand copyright law or usage rights, there is nothing anyone can say to make you understand. You have proven my point that most consumers think they are not bound by usage restrictions from the moment of purchase.

wdlove
May 12, 2005, 04:18 PM
The most important is thing is being able to make backup of songs. I would hat to loose them in case something happened.

shamino
May 12, 2005, 04:25 PM
Ok, I'm done. You really don't understand copyright law or usage rights, there is nothing anyone can say to make you understand. You have proven my point that most consumers think they are not bound by usage restrictions from the moment of purchase.
I've posted references to the sections of the US Code that make my point.

If I'm so completely wrong, post references to the sections that say so. Otherwise, your proof is nothing more than "because I said so".

Consumers are bound by copyright law. They are not bound by RIAA press releases and shrink-wrap license terms.

Copyright law definitely imposes usage restrictions, but those restrictions are not "whatever the RIAA wants to allow", and they are not changed by clicking "I agree" when you install iTunes.

Chip NoVaMac
May 14, 2005, 01:38 AM
Just because it is an easy way to get around restrictions imposed on the number of times a playlist can be burned. Apple is just doing what it needs to do to live up to its agreement with the record companies.

But unless they have started to limit in a broader way of burining a CD, I can spend the time to label the songs on an iTunes CD and and get the ability to make multiple copies. Senseless, unless Apple is afraid of the RIAA.

iMeowbot
May 14, 2005, 02:12 AM
Really?

In all my CD's and a few albums, I never recall reading a license agreement, having a license agreement read to me or signing anything that legally states I don't actually own what i just bought.

Perhaps they started to put them on those stupid stickers that covers the spine of the CD which suck to get off, because I never read that crap anyways.

They never added those because they didn't have to. With no special license agreement it defaults to what copyright law permits, which isn't a heck of a lot. It's common but not required for such things to carry an "all rights reserved" warning, but in the old days people tended to be complacent and not wonder what those "all rights" were.

shamino
May 16, 2005, 11:16 AM
They never added those because they didn't have to. With no special license agreement it defaults to what copyright law permits, which isn't a heck of a lot. It's common but not required for such things to carry an "all rights reserved" warning, but in the old days people tended to be complacent and not wonder what those "all rights" were.
Even with a license agreement, your rights are what the copyright law (US Code and applicable state laws) say. Shrink-wrap/click-thru licenses are only legally binding in MD and VA (where they signed the UCITA into law.)

Unless you explicitly sign a license agreement at or before purchase, of course. But nobody purchasing an album in a store has ever done this.

Ignoring state laws, the US code permits duplication of music for "fair use" (some examples of which are in the Code, and courts have inferred many other applicable cases), for libraries to make backup copies, and a few other cases. The DMCA updates to the Code forbid breaking a DRM scheme or removing copyright notice, but do not otherwise change your rights.

The US Code explicitly permits backup copies of software but not "phonorecords". I don't think it has been completely determined if a downloaded song counts as a phonorecord or as software. IMO, it should be considered software, since the data is encoded in non-trivial ways and is (usually) also encrypted.

As an interesting side point, one personal source (a local DJ that got a written definition from the US copyright office) tells me that CD+G discs (Karaoke CDs) are currently considered software and not phonorecords (although there is pending legislation that will change this if it passes.) He did this research because he uses backup copies of discs in his karaoke business. He has successfully used this researched material (which he takes with him to every show) to turn away anti-piracy Nazis that occasionally confront him (with US Marshals in tow) on accusations of piracy. This written definition, printouts of section 17 of the US Code, and posession of the originals of all the CDs have saved his business on many occasions. Which is why I believe what he has to say on the subject.

Anyway, since a CD+G is a far simpler format than MP3, AAC, and WMA, I would infer that these formats would also be considered software. But I don't think there have yet been any court cases to clarify this. And there probably won't be, because the RIAA doesn't sue people who make copies for personal use (they've only been suing people who redistribute the material, which is prohibited whether the files are software or phonorecords.)

WRT copying CDs (which are definitely phonorecords) The American Home Recording Act (AHRA) explicitly permits non-commercial copying of material using the kind of devices specified by the AHRA (devices that implement SCMS copy protection, like consumder-audio CD-R decks) as long as the device is not modified. It is in dispute whether this also applies to CDs ripped using other means where SCMS is not implemented (e.g. a computer or a pro-audio CD-R deck.)

shamino
May 16, 2005, 11:23 AM
But unless they have started to limit in a broader way of burining a CD, I can spend the time to label the songs on an iTunes CD and and get the ability to make multiple copies. Senseless, unless Apple is afraid of the RIAA.
I don't think Apple can be sued by the RIAA. Orrin Hatch's "induce" extension to the copyright act has not (fortunately) passed into law.

But they are aware that if they don't at least pay lip service to enforcing the DRM terms, the record labels may refuse to supply new songs to iTMS.

Depending on the terms of the iTMS contracts with the record labels, failure to make a good-faith effort to enforce the DRM might also be in breach of the contract - opening the door to lawsuits and renegotiation, which Apple definitely does not want. A lawsuit would be costly, and renegotiation would probably result in prices much higher than $0.99 per song.