PDA

View Full Version : iTunes 5 and DRM?


MacRumors
Jul 13, 2003, 11:22 PM
MacBidouille.com (http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-07-14#184) has published an interesting rumor regarding stricter Digital Rights Management (DRM) possibly coming to iTunes 5.

Apple's current DRM process allows songs to be burnt to CDs -- which may then be played or re-reripped as any "normal" CD can.

According to MacBidouille:

To solve this crucial issue, Apple is reported to have taken a licence from Verance (http://www.verance.com/).

According to Verance's site, they offer an interesting watermark system which embeds "inaudible yet identifiable digital codes into an audio waveform". Such a watermark system would prevent Verance-aware systems from copying those files (unless otherwise allowed) -- though any system would be able to play them. Presumably, non-Verance aware systems would ignore the watermarks and allow you to rip the songs.

MacBidouille states that this protection would be particularly used in the Audio DVD format which is also due to be supported in iTunes 5 as well as the iTunes Music Store. DVD Audio (http://www.verance.com/contentman/faq.html#18) claims to offer "at least twice the sound quality of audio CD." Verance indicates (http://www.verance.com/contentman/index.html) that its technology was selected as the industry standard for DVD-Audio.

While MacBidouille's report implies that this protection system would be used by Apple in Audio CDs, presumably only Verance-aware systems would enforce it.

On the other hand it appears any official DVD-Audio system (Apple's or otherwise) will contain both the Watermark system as well as a key-encryption. More Info: DVD-Audio Copy Protection (http://www.disctronics.co.uk/technology/dvdaudio/dvdaud_copyprot.htm)

Additional Info: DVD Audio Watermarking controversy (http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0800/09.dvdwatermark.shtml).

Note: Macbidouille has had a variable history of accuracy, and gives no indication as to the confidence of this report.

merges
Jul 13, 2003, 11:30 PM
Seems like an interesting solution... the question is, will a standard copy protection system be adopted by *everyone* in the industry?

LethalWolfe
Jul 13, 2003, 11:31 PM
Interesting.

I'm glad to hear that that iTMS and iTunes will support DVD-A. Hopefully that means that higher quality songs will be able to be purchased.


Lethal

sluthy
Jul 13, 2003, 11:31 PM
As long as normal off-the-shelf CDs don't have this, I'm fine. Any copy-protection on those CDs will result in me boycotting it. I already refuse to buy any album with EMI's CopyControl on it - it's a shame when technology will stop be from buying Ben Harper and Norah Jones.

ZildjianKX
Jul 13, 2003, 11:40 PM
Just another reason not to use iTunes and to buy REAL CDs...

rice_web
Jul 13, 2003, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Just another reason not to use iTunes and to buy REAL CDs...

Except that many CDs have similar methods already in place.

rice_web
Jul 13, 2003, 11:47 PM
.Rating (0 Positives; 10 Negatives)

Popular story.

MacCoaster
Jul 13, 2003, 11:52 PM
DRM is inevitable, no matter how much we hate it. Apple never said they were against DRM, but they said that they would do it if there were a proper solution, IIRC. Maybe they have found out how to do it properly.

Thank god I'm deaf so I won't have to worry about this crap. :p Just kidding. I know DRM is scary, but realistically, it's inevitable. :(

arn
Jul 13, 2003, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Just another reason not to use iTunes and to buy REAL CDs...

I sit there are write up a full report on it, and people still just have knee jerk reactions. :)

My take is that while it's possible that Apple may use it on the audio-cd's... it doesn't seem likely -- as every other CD-player/ripper ignores it. It makes more sense they are using it for DVDAudio.

It seems _all_ DVDAudio players will be required to use this new protection. Much like all DVD-Players must enforce CSS.

arn

dguisinger
Jul 13, 2003, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by arn
damnit, I sit there are write up a full report on it, and people still just have knee jerk reactions.

My take is that while it's possible that Apple may use it on the audio-cd's... it doesn't seem likely -- as every other CD-player/ripper ignores it. It makes more sense they are using it for DVDAudio.

It seems _all_ DVDAudio players will be required to use this new protection. Much like all DVD-Players must enforce CSS.

arn

Arn,

But could iTunes refuse to play MP3s ripped from CDs that contain the water mark? Thus the MP3 is bad if ripped and used with aware players. Or, is this a watermark that becomes more visible under compression and makes the MP3 less that satisfying?

arn
Jul 13, 2003, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by dguisinger
Arn,

But could iTunes refuse to play MP3s ripped from CDs that contain the water mark? Thus the MP3 is bad if ripped and used with aware players. Or, is this a watermark that becomes more visible under compression and makes the MP3 less that satisfying?

interesting point.

suppsedly, the watermark stays in tact through the mp3 encoding process. So, yes, an watermarked MP3 wouldn't be able to play on an iTunes that enforced it.

(all theoretical)

... but any other "usual" MP3 player would. That's why it makes sense for something like DVD's or DVDAudio where there's presumably a governing licensing group that controls it.

MP3, however, was born DRM free.... so none of the apps/players support it.

arn

DeusOmnis
Jul 13, 2003, 11:57 PM
Is the rating suppose to be "positive news or negative news" or is it suppose to be "i like this store or i dont like it"?

whfsdude
Jul 14, 2003, 12:03 AM
Ugh Apple! People don't respond well to force. I won't use the iTunes Music Store anymore if I can't re-rip into AAC.

dguisinger
Jul 14, 2003, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by whfsdude
Ugh Apple! People don't respond well to force. I won't use the iTunes Music Store anymore if I can't re-rip into AAC.

Heh, maybe its a good thing I didn't backup my collection before my system got wiped clean last night. Who knows, maybe you wont be able to use backups in the future.

I'm still pissed that I lost my music and there isn't an economical way to replace music I already paid for. With a subscription service, that would never matter.

mr.v
Jul 14, 2003, 12:22 AM
If people want 2x the sound quality, why would they rip it to mp3 or Acc.
Acc is better but I've still heard it make a mess of some cymbals and low bass frequencies. Have you seen the price of a sony SACD player! If people can afford that I am sure they don't mind paying for the cds. The music industry is entering a mess right now. Let's hope it gets better :-)

Why do I still buy cd's? well It's more than just the source quality, Album Artwork, Liner Notes, Photos.
Nothing beats the whole package when it's an album you love.

Sometimes I think the music industry may forget that maybe the reason people aren't buying as much music is because the there are so many crappy releases. These days notice when there is a new Hit it only lasts a week and the artist is gone.
Hopefully people will get into musicianship and making solid tunes
that last again. Instead of what can we sell this week attitude/limited scope :-(

Sorry for the long post, this is frustrating

LethalWolfe
Jul 14, 2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by whfsdude
Ugh Apple! People don't respond well to force. I won't use the iTunes Music Store anymore if I can't re-rip into AAC.

I'm confused. You want to purchase songs from iTMS, burn them onto a CD, then rip those songs into iTunes? And you won't use iTMS if you can't do that? Am I understanding you or am I confused?


Lethal

BaghdadBob
Jul 14, 2003, 12:26 AM
I'm with arn that I just don't think this is highly likely. In fact, move it to page 2.

It would be a pointless addition IMO. MacB is so lame.

MrMacMan
Jul 14, 2003, 12:26 AM
BOO! BAD MOVE APPLE!


Watermarking sucks!

Nermal
Jul 14, 2003, 12:30 AM
So who rated this positive?

Anyway, I'm against all sorts of DRM. If Apple gives us iTunes 5 with DRM (that can't be switched off), then I'll just use 4 until there's a way around it.

Mosco
Jul 14, 2003, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by mr.v
Have you seen the price of a sony SACD player! If people can afford that I am sure they don't mind paying for the cds. The music industry is entering a mess right now. Let's hope it gets better :-)


Its only 229 for a 5 changer that plays CDs, DVDs, and SA Cds. Thats not that bad.

Panasonic has one for less than that. I think DVD-Audio is the same way.

I think this program will be good if it will allow us to play DVD-Audio in our macs. With the G5s coming with Digital Out and devices like the Sonica, this would be save people from having to buy one at all.

And if they used this in ITMS, we don't know how. They could make it so people could re-rip their songs in AAC it they enter their account info.

nuckinfutz
Jul 14, 2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Mosco
Its only 229 for a 5 changer that plays CDs, DVDs, and SA Cds. Thats not that bad.

Panasonic has one for less than that. I think DVD-Audio is the same way.

I think this program will be good if it will allow us to play DVD-Audio in our macs. With the G5s coming with Digital Out and devices like the Sonica, this would be save people from having to buy one at all.

And if they used this in ITMS, we don't know how. They could make it so people could re-rip their songs in AAC it they enter their account info.

DVD-Audio cannot be output through Toslink. Only the DTS/Dolby Digital can be output.

$229 ? How about a DVD/SACD/DVD-Audio player
here (http://www.crutchfield.com/cgi-bin/S-xP31xqMJGXM/ProdView.asp?s=0&c=6&g=54400&I=130DV563A&o=n&a=0&cc=01&avf=N) to get things set off right. Save your $50 for some iTunes Tracks!!! :D

whfsdude
Jul 14, 2003, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I'm confused. You want to purchase songs from iTMS, burn them onto a CD, then rip those songs into iTunes? And you won't use iTMS if you can't do that? Am I understanding you or am I confused?


Lethal


Yeah, I know you are going to say that is crazy but my dad needs the AAC without DRM for his peecee.

Second so I can share my music with friends :-)

Mosco
Jul 14, 2003, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
DVD-Audio cannot be output through Toslink. Only the DTS/Dolby Digital can be output.

$229 ? How about a DVD/SACD/DVD-Audio player
here (http://www.crutchfield.com/cgi-bin/S-xP31xqMJGXM/ProdView.asp?s=0&c=6&g=54400&I=130DV563A&o=n&a=0&cc=01&avf=N) to get things set off right. Save your $50 for some iTunes Tracks!!! :D

So maybe something like a M-Audio revolution would be better then. Direct 5.1 from the mac. I know that you can do that with the Audigy 2(play DVD-Audio that is).

Isn't most DVD-Audio just PCM though? Depending on the bit rate, wouldn't a receiver be able to output that, or would it only be in 2 channels and not 5.1?

Mosco
Jul 14, 2003, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by whfsdude
Yeah, I know you are going to say that is crazy but my dad needs the AAC without DRM for his peecee.

Second so I can share my music with friends :-)

By the time Itunes 5 comes out, i would think that Itunes for windows would be out which would pretty much fix your problem as you could just authorize the PC to play the files.

Analog Kid
Jul 14, 2003, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
DRM is inevitable, no matter how much we hate it. ... I know DRM is scary, but realistically, it's inevitable. :(

Nothing is inevitable. DRM will only take hold if consumers continue to act like sheep and let the Recording Industry Ass. of America herd them into their pens.

Remember when software used to be copy protected? Then an arms race started with copy protection and cracking apps. Consumers got fed up with the hassle of locked discs and having to enable their programs every time they fired them up. Eventually companies stopped locking them (at least until the recent return of key-codes).

Look what happened to Intuit when they tried to lock Turbo-tax.

I've got nothing against protecting the value of your work. I do have something against price-fixing. I really think the recent rise in piracy has been fueled by obscene CD prices. Just look at a market like Russia where just about all CDs/DVDs are black market-- not surprising when you insist on selling an hour of music for $20 in a country where the average salary is something like $50 a month...

Same in China.

In the US, most of the file swapping is done among students-- another low income group.

I've got a pretty extensive CD collection (I've filled a 20GB iPod legally). Most of those where bought for $7-$10 in Boston when there was a price-war going on between Tower and Newbury Comics. True competition brought the prices into a range I considered reasonable.

Since then I've become a professional engineer with a decent salary and my collection has grown much more slowly because I find $15 CDs offensive.

Not surprisingly, the industry has missed the boat entirely on this. Remember how scared they were of VCRs? Now most of their revenue comes from tape rentals.

I do think watermarking is the right answer to this, but only as a tool for tracing egregious offenders, not as a locking mechanism. If you find a song online that has my watermark on it (not a feature of this system), get in touch with Apple (who has my credit card data) and track me down. Don't prevent me from mixing a disc for my girlfriend...

fpnc
Jul 14, 2003, 01:13 AM
Everyone should read the additional info link given in the heading:

http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0800/09.dvdwatermark.shtml

I agree that something has to be done to protect copyrighted materials, but I'm afraid that audio watermarking could cause a degradation in the quality of playback. Although the iTunes Music Store songs (AAC) sound very good I can usually pick out an original CD track from a song that I've purchased from the store when I do a "blind" comparison. It's often difficult to actually identify what is different, I guess I'd call it a very slight fuzziness in the clarity of some of the background (lesser) instruments or notes. To my ears AAC still sounds very good, but it's not identical when encoded at 128kbps (but I continue to buy from the music store, at least so far). However, if they add watermarks that introduce additional audible differences then that may be the end of my use of the Music Store.

Dazzler
Jul 14, 2003, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by mr.v
Sometimes I think the music industry may forget that maybe the reason people aren't buying as much music is because the there are so many crappy releases. These days notice when there is a new Hit it only lasts a week and the artist is gone.

Surely this has got to be the understatement of the century?

QCassidy352
Jul 14, 2003, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by whfsdude
Ugh Apple! People don't respond well to force. I won't use the iTunes Music Store anymore if I can't re-rip into AAC.

Damn straight! I refuse to use iTMS simply because Apple wants to restrict how I can use the music. Do I really care about these restrictions, for practical purposes? No, I don't.

But I'm a contrary SOB who doesn't respond well to force. You may think that's an absurd position, but I'm the kind of person who will refuse to do something simply because someone tells me I have to do it. (Like Barry Bonds refusing to play in the home run derby this year - his only reason being "Because I'm a grown man and I don't have to.")

hvfsl
Jul 14, 2003, 04:04 AM
There are two main reasons why the music inductry is no longer doing so well.

1. Lots of people are now downloading
2. People now spend their money on games and DVD as well. Last year the computer games industry overtook the combined music and movie industry in terms of money spent by comsumers world wide.

Also broadband is helping to decrease music sales even more since a survey in the UK found that 60% of UK broadband users regulary download music from Kazaa and other P2P networks.

3.1416
Jul 14, 2003, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by Analog Kid
Nothing is inevitable. DRM will only take hold if consumers continue to act like sheep and let the Recording Industry Ass. of America herd them into their pens.

Well said. We are not powerless victims here. Just because the **AAs want to destroy fair use and first sale rights doesn't mean we have to sit back and take it. We just have to show them that such user-hostile actions will hurt their bottom line. This is entirely possible; informed consumers made Circuit City's Divx scheme go down in flames.

If Apple does something like this for the iTMS (which I don't think is likely, but you never know), we need to get as many people as possible to boycott it.

3.1416
Jul 14, 2003, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by QCassidy352
You may think that's an absurd position, but I'm the kind of person who will refuse to do something simply because someone tells me I have to do it.

I know exactly what you mean. I have no desire whatsoever to smoke, except when I see those sanctimonious anti-smoking spots on TV. Right now I consider the iTMS restrictions just barely acceptable because Apple isn't trying to completely control what you can do with the music, just make it more inconvenient in the hopes of deterring pirates. If they move to "hard" DRM, I'm gone.

MetallicPenguin
Jul 14, 2003, 06:18 AM
Okay yes....if....IF Apple does go to "hard" DRM, let's all send threatening emails and start boycotts and parades and such in Cupertino, until they give up and stop the force. (and no I'm not being sarcastic)

maka
Jul 14, 2003, 07:11 AM
As the other article said, the watermarking is audible, it makes sense. ¿How else is it supposed to survive the mp3 encoding that removes all inaudible sounds?

¿What is the point of spending lots of money for a DVD Audio or SACD player and all the new discs only to lose all the quality because of watermarking?

I don't like watermarking and I guess the more inaudible it becomes, the easier it would be to corrupt making an analog copy or ripping it to mp3.

Anyway, (and this is a personal opinion) most of the music they're going to protect is going to be crappy music from the major labels, and this will only make them lose more sales. Worse for them, and I really don't care about them or their music.

bikertwin
Jul 14, 2003, 07:19 AM
DRM is one thing, what about restricting hardware choices?

As .Mac users are aware, Apple recently updated the Backup application that comes with .Mac so that it only writes to original, Apple-installed CD and DVD burners.

This means anyone who buys an add-on CD or DVD burner cannot use it to backup their data. This includes people who have Cubes or iMacs or PowerBooks that did not have CD burners originally. There is no way for them to back up using this application.

Is Apple using Backup as a testing ground? Might they remove CD burning on non-Apple burners from iTunes 5? Has anyone heard rumors to this effect? Do you mind that Apple is taking this step? How do you think hardware manufacturers will respond?

There is a discussion of this in the "PowerMac G5 Keyboard, Displays, an Other Rumors" thread on Page Two.

bosskxx1
Jul 14, 2003, 07:33 AM
Do you think that Apple wants to put DRM into their software?

This is all because the RIAA wants more protection, otherwise they would pull back from the iTunes store.

I really don't get the RIAA, they seem to have this weird sense that if they put more and more protection, that they will prevent it from being stolen.

But the sad reality is that if you can hear it, you can copy it, either in an analog or a digital way. Even Steve Jobs said there is no 100% guarantee. What they should do is offer more inventive to purchase legitimate copies than just downloading it.

But if you are a legitimate customer you probably won't notice any of it.

paulc
Jul 14, 2003, 07:50 AM
Not one mention about iTunes itself... as in is iTunes 5 going to ONLY be adding on more DRM? Are we going to be stuck at iTunes 3.0 functionality? When are we going to get multiple library support? When are we goin g to get more flexibility? When are we going to get the ability to add album graphics that don't take up space on an iPod?

MhzDoesMatter
Jul 14, 2003, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by sluthy
it's a shame when technology will stop be from buying Ben Harper and Norah Jones.

Picked up Norah Jones and ripped it straightway. No problems here. Also bought another set of the songs off iTMS so I would legally have a license to spare and give to my sister. How's that for support of music copyrights?

Originally posted by paulc

Are we going to be stuck at iTunes 3.0 functionality? When are we going to get multiple library support? When are we goin g to get more flexibility? When are we going to get the ability to add album graphics that don't take up space on an iPod?

Hopefully you've been submitting your requests to Apple's Feedback because none of your suggestions had ever occurred to me during my normal use of my product. Which means, while these features would ultimately benefit all of us, they're only issues for a portion of us.
A lot of times we think that some of our ideas make up the natural progression of something. Apple's developers may never have planned on adding any of those things. Maybe you should tell them and stop just expecting them to know and add what u want.

Originally posted by bikertwin
Is Apple using Backup as a testing ground? Might they remove CD burning on non-Apple burners from iTunes 5?

No. I think someone made a very dumb mistake. But I also hope that someone made a very dumb mistake. Or else someone is making a very dumb mistake. Ya feel me?

Originally posted by bikertwin
Okay yes....if....IF Apple does go to "hard" DRM, let's all send threatening emails and start boycotts and parades and such in Cupertino, until they give up and stop the force. (and no I'm not being sarcastic)

And do you know what the great thing is? MacUsers are maybe the only market group who would actually do this. And you know what else? Apple is maybe the only company that would respond to it. That's my reason for choosing this platform....."You mean...the user...matters?"


-Hertz

Jerry Spoon
Jul 14, 2003, 08:16 AM
If this is what it takes for Apple to get labels on board to expand into other markets, then I'm for it. If not, they why's Apple doing it?

Freg3000
Jul 14, 2003, 08:37 AM
The good thing is that iTunes 5 is probably still a year away. So we get to enjoy the current setup for a while longer.

Now I have an idea. :)

Arn, I don't know how big you want the MacRumors Buyer's Guide to be, but how about adding in some software? Put in the iApps, and then just some of the important stuff like Final Cut Pro. I dunno, just a suggestion.

DGFan
Jul 14, 2003, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by arn

It seems _all_ DVDAudio players will be required to use this new protection. Much like all DVD-Players must enforce CSS.


And we all know how well that works.
:p

The only thing stopping DVD pirating from being completely rampant (as opposed to just mostly rampant) is the cost of media.

DGFan
Jul 14, 2003, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by bikertwin
DRM is one thing, what about restricting hardware choices?

As .Mac users are aware, Apple recently updated the Backup application that comes with .Mac so that it only writes to original, Apple-installed CD and DVD burners.

This means anyone who buys an add-on CD or DVD burner cannot use it to backup their data. This includes people who have Cubes or iMacs or PowerBooks that did not have CD burners originally. There is no way for them to back up using this application.

Is Apple using Backup as a testing ground? Might they remove CD burning on non-Apple burners from iTunes 5? Has anyone heard rumors to this effect? Do you mind that Apple is taking this step? How do you think hardware manufacturers will respond?

There is a discussion of this in the "PowerMac G5 Keyboard, Displays, an Other Rumors" thread on Page Two.

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, it seems more than slightly obnoxious for Apple to actually go to this trouble to lock out non-Apple hardware from their software. On the other hand, Apple continues to improve backup for free and there is nothing preventing you from using a 3rd-party burner with 3rd-party burning software.

Considering that iTunes is something of a flagship application I doubt Apple would want to alienate a large segment of their user base in such a manner by removing CD burning for non-Apple burners. (Although I wouldn't put it past them to do so for DVD burning with DVD-Audio)

Java
Jul 14, 2003, 09:04 AM
As long as I can listen to downloaded music via the iTMS on my iPod, I'm happy.

Steve Jobs is not going to screw the consumer and sell out to the RIAA.

Besides, any so-called protection will be cracked within time anyway.

Potus
Jul 14, 2003, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by QCassidy352
Damn straight! I refuse to use iTMS simply because Apple wants to restrict how I can use the music. Do I really care about these restrictions, for practical purposes? No, I don't.

But I'm a contrary SOB who doesn't respond well to force. You may think that's an absurd position, but I'm the kind of person who will refuse to do something simply because someone tells me I have to do it. (Like Barry Bonds refusing to play in the home run derby this year - his only reason being "Because I'm a grown man and I don't have to.")

Isn't this just a rumor? Are you changing behavior over a rumor?

soggywulf
Jul 14, 2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by fpnc
Store songs (AAC) sound very good I can usually pick out an original CD track from a song that I've purchased from the store when I do a "blind" comparison.

I'm curious about this. What method did you use to do the blind comparison, and on what equipment? With audio, I tend to disbelieve most claims of audibility, because both the eyes and brain tend to make you believe what you want to believe.

IMO, a double-blind test is the only way to know for sure.

trose
Jul 14, 2003, 09:54 AM
While I am not fond of DRM, some of you guys go a *tad* nuts over it.

First, I highly doubt Apple would do it by their own free will, but they have to play nicely with the record companies.

Second, alot of you seem VERY confused about what happens when you buy music. You don't all the sudden "Own" that music, you just bought a license to listen to it.
This is coming from the same group of people who get mad because MS steals Apple idea's. Its the same thing..stealing.

Personally, I am fine buying music and listening to it on up to 10 devices. The only reason I would not like it is if I was trying to do something illegal.

About Software protection schemes... the only time they really bug me is when they check everytime you open the App, via a report back to their servers. MS Office does this and It really ticks me off. I don't like an app sending out net data without telling me.

In the end though, the schemes are almost useless for Software. The kind of people who spend the time to go out and find a warez copy will 99% of the time, have the knowhow to get around any protection.

mr.v
Jul 14, 2003, 09:55 AM
When I was talking about affording a SACD player, I was refering to the ones at the sony site. Figured I would go there to see the price cause sacd is developed by sony and phillips
$2000 to $8000 cad Sick!!!


http://www.sonystyle.ca/webapp/commerce/servlet/CategoryDisplay?merchant_rn=1&cgrfnbr=2111&parent=HOME_AUDIO

msassman
Jul 14, 2003, 09:56 AM
I have been using the ITMS since it launched and I have purchased more music than I care to think about.

As a college student, I don't have time to get to a music store and buy CDs that I will need to store and move when i move in and out of the dorms.

I have been slowly replacing my downloaded music with purchased music simply because it is right, and it has helped me slim down my collection too.

As far as DRM....as a legit customer I don't feel it at all. I have copied my purchased music from the laptop to the desktop with ease (no extra steps), and my iPod works in the car and during my workout so I have no need to burn CDs.

If you push the limits you will find them, but if you simply enjoy the innovative service that apple provides, you will enjoy every bit of it.

Java
Jul 14, 2003, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by msassman
If you push the limits you will find them, but if you simply enjoy the innovative service that apple provides, you will enjoy every bit of it.

I second that.

Mosco
Jul 14, 2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by mr.v
When I was talking about affording a SACD player, I was refering to the ones at the sony site. Figured I would go there to see the price cause sacd is developed by sony and phillips
$2000 to $8000 cad Sick!!!


http://www.sonystyle.ca/webapp/commerce/servlet/CategoryDisplay?merchant_rn=1&cgrfnbr=2111&parent=HOME_AUDIO

Those are the ES series, of course they are going to be expensive. Look at their normal consumer products.

frozenstar
Jul 14, 2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Nermal
Anyway, I'm against all sorts of DRM. If Apple gives us iTunes 5 with DRM (that can't be switched off), then I'll just use 4 until there's a way around it.

Okay, so which of the following is it?

You think everyone should be trusted to do what's honest and right?
You don't think artists deserve money for the music they make?
You don't care about theft and legality at all?

I really hate being mean, but sometimes I can't help it... Your stance is foolish and closed-minded. As with most things, a balanced solution is the right one. Being too extreme to either side will only set the industry back.

thrice
Jul 14, 2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Java
I second that.

Yeah I gotta say...it seems like most of the people who complain about DRM are those whose "activities" it prohibits....like P2P! I too have been using the iTMS since it's inception and I've never had a problem with the DRM in place. The only problem I could see with the rumored DRM from this articel is the possibility of a lower quality sound file due to the digital watermark. That would be bad, but I don't think Apple would allow that.

alset
Jul 14, 2003, 10:58 AM
Anything within the range of 96KHZ will be audible to some people. Rupert Neve has demonstrated that many people can hear a distinct clarity in sounds that have a bump around 54KHZ (outside the range of natural human hearing). Any watermark has the potential to completely destroy music for those with acute hearing.

Dan

3.1416
Jul 14, 2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by trose
Second, alot of you seem VERY confused about what happens when you buy music. You don't all the sudden "Own" that music, you just bought a license to listen to it.

Not true. When I buy a book, I don't get a "license to read", I own the actual book. I can't make photocopies and hand them out to my friends because I don't own the copyright. Likewise with music. It's a subtle but important distinction. The copyright lobby is trying to turn all purchases into "licenses" so they can exert control over how we use products after we've paid for them, and we shouldn't allow them to get away with it.

Personally, I am fine buying music and listening to it on up to 10 devices. The only reason I would not like it is if I was trying to do something illegal.

"Hard" DRM prohibits a wide range of activities that are not illegal (or shouldn't be). In order to be effective, open source players must be prohibited. "Circumvention devices" like Wiretap or Audio Hijack have to be blocked at the OS level. Apple's entire digital hub strategy is based on being able to move digital media around seamlessly; DRM kills that.

Rower_CPU
Jul 14, 2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
DVD-Audio cannot be output through Toslink. Only the DTS/Dolby Digital can be output.

I think that statement's a little misleading.

Output via Toslink (aka digital optical out) into a receiver or speaker system with built-in Dolby Digital support will absolutely work.

soggywulf
Jul 14, 2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by alset
Anything within the range of 96KHZ will be audible to some people. Rupert Neve has demonstrated that many people can hear a distinct clarity in sounds that have a bump around 54KHZ (outside the range of natural human hearing).

Details? Was this a double-blind test? How many reps, what was the threshold of significance, and what percentage of people passed that threshold (i.e. what percentage heard a difference)?

Originally posted by alset
Any watermark has the potential to completely destroy music for those with acute hearing.

I doubt it. There's a difference between "barely detect" and "destroy".

soggywulf
Jul 14, 2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by 3.1416
Not true. When I buy a book, I don't get a "license to read", I own the actual book. I can't make photocopies and hand them out to my friends because I don't own the copyright. Likewise with music. It's a subtle but important distinction. The copyright lobby is trying to turn all purchases into "licenses" so they can exert control over how we use products after we've paid for them, and we shouldn't allow them to get away with it.

Agreed. Thank you.

soggywulf
Jul 14, 2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
DVD-Audio cannot be output through Toslink. Only the DTS/Dolby Digital can be output.

I don't know about your first statement, but the second statement is untrue. The optical output will put out 2-channel stereo 16/44 as well.

MetallicPenguin
Jul 14, 2003, 12:37 PM
And do you know what the great thing is? MacUsers are maybe the only market group who would actually do this. And you know what else? Apple is maybe the only company that would respond to it. That's my reason for choosing this platform....."You mean...the user...matters?"


-Hertz [/B]

My point exactly:D

obeygiant
Jul 14, 2003, 12:49 PM
This whole concept makes me feel dirty. Like someone is looking through my computer and telling me what I can and can't do with my stuff. I don't like it.
It makes me feel as if I'm using Microsoft crap.

Raiden
Jul 14, 2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by 3.1416
I know exactly what you mean. I have no desire whatsoever to smoke, except when I see those sanctimonious anti-smoking spots on TV. Right now I consider the iTMS restrictions just barely acceptable because Apple isn't trying to completely control what you can do with the music, just make it more inconvenient in the hopes of deterring pirates. If they move to "hard" DRM, I'm gone.

I agree 100% with that statement.

Ok, I get annoyed when I hear this DRM palladium type stuff. I dont have many CDs because they are so expensive. In my area, 17 bucks for new CDs. Its damn near rediculous. Im a bag boy at a grocerie store. I dont make much cash. So when corperate big-whigs tell me that I cant (as someone said before) burn a CD for my girlfriend, or I cant trade a few of my fav songs with a friend, or I cant add "x" song to my PC that I payed 2000 bucks for, I get will get really pissed!

I swear, I will boycott to hell this kind of stuff. I will stop buying CDs, I will not buy any computer that has any type of hard DRM on it (and I will think reeeal hard if it has soft DRM), and I will personally send emails, letters, etc to any and all DRM associated companies. I would even go so far to protest publically in front of buildings if I have to.

Man is my blood boiling right now!! :mad: :mad: :eek: :( :o :)

bluebull
Jul 14, 2003, 01:24 PM
Note to self: do not use iTunes 5. And to everyone who is against file sharing, look at this (http://www.dailyillini.com/mar03/mar03/news/stories/news_story11.shtml) . I guess we're not the only ones who steal money!
"The 2000 lawsuit claimed companies and retailers conspired to illegally raise prices by creating minimum advertised price policies, violating the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits practices that restrict competition in the music market."
Interesting.

Snowy_River
Jul 14, 2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by frozenstar
Okay, so which of the following is it?

You think everyone should be trusted to do what's honest and right?
You don't think artists deserve money for the music they make?
You don't care about theft and legality at all?

I really hate being mean, but sometimes I can't help it... Your stance is foolish and closed-minded. As with most things, a balanced solution is the right one. Being too extreme to either side will only set the industry back.

Yes, I agree with you. It would be very nice if everyone could be trusted to do what's honest and right, but we know that there are a lot of people who wouldn't. So, finding a balanced solution to curb the opportunists (the true pirates will, as has already been noted, find their way around almost any type of DRM) without overly inconveniencing the rest of us is the best route.

Snowy_River
Jul 14, 2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by 3.1416
Not true. When I buy a book, I don't get a "license to read", I own the actual book. I can't make photocopies and hand them out to my friends because I don't own the copyright. Likewise with music. It's a subtle but important distinction. The copyright lobby is trying to turn all purchases into "licenses" so they can exert control over how we use products after we've paid for them, and we shouldn't allow them to get away with it.


This is actually very much a two edged sword. If the argument is successful that purchasing a book or CD is a (materials +) license purchase, then, if you keep your proof of purchase and something happens to the book or CD, you should be able to purchase a replacement for cost of materials only (which should be a small fraction of the original cost). I'm sure that the copyright loby is well aware of this implication and they are appropriately cautious about asserting that you're purchasing a license.

Also, copyright law makes it fairly clear what you have the right to do with a purchased, but copyrighted, item.

Analog Kid
Jul 14, 2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by bosskxx1
Do you think that Apple wants to put DRM into their software?

This is all because the RIAA wants more protection, otherwise they would pull back from the iTunes store.

I agree this is why the DRM is being put in, but I refuse to have my love for Apple used to lever these kinds of fair use violations into place.

I really want to see the Music Store succeed. I think it is succeeding. I also think services like this are the only hope the labels have of surviving.

I think it would hurt Apple to have people leave the store in droves, but I refuse to let the RIAA use Apple as a "human shield". If the labels see a successful online venture suddenly tank because they got too heavy handed, they'll probably claim that it's proof people just wanted to pirate music, but maybe someone will miss the profits and realize the reality of the situation which is that they've degraded the utility of the product to the point people won't buy it.

Originally posted by bosskxx1
But if you are a legitimate customer you probably won't notice any of it.

No, you won't notice it... until you do.

Analog Kid
Jul 14, 2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by trose

Second, alot of you seem VERY confused about what happens when you buy music. You don't all the sudden "Own" that music, you just bought a license to listen to it.
This is coming from the same group of people who get mad because MS steals Apple idea's. Its the same thing..stealing.


No, I think you are very confused about the differences between copyright and software licensing. There are very specific "fair use" protections to the consumer for making personal copies of copyrighted material, excerpting material for the sake of review, and even making copies for non-commercial distribution-- ie. making a tape for a friend.

The whole reason for the EULAs attached to most software is that they are asserting restrictions beyond copyright.

steveh
Jul 14, 2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by dguisinger
Heh, maybe its a good thing I didn't backup my collection before my system got wiped clean last night....I'm still pissed that I lost my music and there isn't an economical way to replace music I already paid for. With a subscription service, that would never matter.

It's nobody's fault but yours that you didn't backup your music.

Perhaps you *are* the type of customer that a subscription service was made for.

Analog Kid
Jul 14, 2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by frozenstar

You think everyone should be trusted to do what's honest and right?
You don't think artists deserve money for the music they make?
You don't care about theft and legality at all?


I'll take "(d) None of the Above"... :)

I think there are fair use provisions for a reason and I don't want to have them impeded.

I do think people should be trusted to do what's right-- until they don't.

You know, the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing we love so much?

Like I said in my first post on this thread-- I've got nothing against watermarking for identification purposes. I don't like DRM as a control mechanism.

This has broad implications, beyond Kazaa... Open source players was a good example. The tradition of mixing tapes for friends is another. Propping up a distribution monopoly is a third.

Finally I don't like being victim to a "bait and switch". Putting DRM in a song means they can decide later what I can and can't do with it.

soggywulf
Jul 14, 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by bluebull
Note to self: do not use iTunes 5. And to everyone who is against file sharing, look at this (http://www.dailyillini.com/mar03/mar03/news/stories/news_story11.shtml) . I guess we're not the only ones who steal money!
"The 2000 lawsuit claimed companies and retailers conspired to illegally raise prices by creating minimum advertised price policies, violating the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits practices that restrict competition in the music market."
Interesting.

You know, I don't like DRM either...but two wrongs don't make a right. If the music industry is participating in collusion or other crappy behavior, that is orthogonal to the issue at hand.

Let's call a spade a spade. People downloading MP3's instead of buying music are stealing. Whether or not you care about that is up to you. If you don't want to steal and you think music is overpriced or you can't afford it, then listen to the radio instead.

Personally, I love MP3's and the various grassroots distribution systems. Why? Because they allow me to discover new music so that I can then buy the CDs or buy the iTunes. I have hundreds of CDs. 95% of those I would not have bought were it not for MP3's.

Trekkie
Jul 14, 2003, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by whfsdude
Yeah, I know you are going to say that is crazy but my dad needs the AAC without DRM for his peecee.

Second so I can share my music with friends :-)

So you won't use iTMS or any new version of iTunes because it won't let you steal music and give it away to other people? I'm shocked.

I'm all for new ways of distributing music. I'm all against easy ways that let you give it away to anyone you feel like without the artist/label being compensated for their work

soggywulf
Jul 14, 2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Analog Kid
I'll take "(d) None of the Above"... :)

I think there are fair use provisions for a reason and I don't want to have them impeded.

I do think people should be trusted to do what's right-- until they don't.

You know, the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing we love so much?


I agree.

DRM is like requiring steak knife makers to dull all their blades, so that you can't use them to kill people.

Trekkie
Jul 14, 2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Analog Kid
Nothing is inevitable. DRM will only take hold if consumers continue to act like sheep and let the Recording Industry Ass. of America herd them into their pens.

This argument holds no water.

RIAA is only attempting to maintain their ability to make money off of a product they sell.

however misguided some of these attempts are to do so, it all boils down to one thing.

People want something for free and are upset that people want them to pay for things that they put their effort into.

I don't care *what* argument you come up with. The ability to make a perfect copy of something and give it to whomever you want, either via p2p, email, CDs, floppies, or a number 2 pencil you are stealing. plain and simple.

It'd be just the same as if you were to go out, and buy a PowerMac G5 and then take it home, and put it in your hand dandy transmogrifier & make 50 million new ones giving them to everyone that walked by.

What stops you is you can't photocopy a G5 as easy as you can digitize a CD.

What's even worse, is all the flap & stuff so far in this forum is probably a huge overreaction. I'm betting that this entire DRM discussion is so that DVD-Audio and SACDs will work with iTunes. The Music industry put in so much copy protection into these two devices that you can't even use a simple digital out (toslink or coax) and have to use a seperated 5.1 output from your SACD or DVD-A player directly into an amplifier. So right now the one SACD i have has never been listened to because I have a pre/pro setup that doesn't have an analog bypass.

XForge
Jul 14, 2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by mr.v
Sometimes I think the music industry may forget that maybe the reason people aren't buying as much music is because the there are so many crappy releases. These days notice when there is a new Hit it only lasts a week and the artist is gone.

It's because the number of marketers in the music biz has long since exceeded the number of people with a single iota of musical taste. The music isn't allowed to market itself on the basis of its own, uh, likeability; instead almost everything "commercial" is produced for the sole purpose of selling thousands of copies to people who either have no taste (i.e. 12-year-olds whose sense of what's good is still forming), or for some reason need to have their taste in music dictated to them (i.e. the kind of people that actually enjoy watching "Survivor").

Hopefully people will get into musicianship and making solid tunes that last again. Instead of what can we sell this week attitude/limited scope :-(

This is what I'm hoping too. I've become so completely jaded with what commercial outlets (radio, VH1, music outlets like Circuit City & Best Buy) are trying to ram down my throat that I've taken to seeking out the most esoteric and eclectic net-radio stations I can find, listening and taking note of what artists I like, and then going out and buying those discs, from independent dealers if possible. (That last part is just for the principle of it of course.) I've been doing this for just a little while and I already feel better about my music choices.... = )

frozenstar
Jul 14, 2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Analog Kid
I'll take "(d) None of the Above"... :)

I think there are fair use provisions for a reason and I don't want to have them impeded.

I do think people should be trusted to do what's right-- until they don't.

You know, the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing we love so much?

Like I said in my first post on this thread-- I've got nothing against watermarking for identification purposes. I don't like DRM as a control mechanism.

This has broad implications, beyond Kazaa... Open source players was a good example. The tradition of mixing tapes for friends is another. Propping up a distribution monopoly is a third.

Finally I don't like being victim to a "bait and switch". Putting DRM in a song means they can decide later what I can and can't do with it.

I completely sympathize with people that feel inclined to download music off of file-sharing networks. The RIAA and the big five labels have been screwing artists and consumers for years. They've been found guilty of price-fixing and of many other unfair business practices, and they've provided no good legal alternative for buying music online.

But...

Even once large-scale electronic music distribution services (like iTMS) are in place and widespread there will be people that will continue to steal music. These people will be the driving factor for the enforcement of DRM.

As I've said before though, an extreme solution is not a solution at all. It can only serve to cripple music sales even more. We must find a happy medium, one where consumers will not be inconvenienced in their daily music management tasks, and one where thieves will not have the freedom to illegally replicate hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of electronic music in the blink of an eye.

Don't worry though.... the RIAA and the big five will get what's coming to them. I believe they are ultimately doomed. The only reason they are still in the picture is because most artists need these companies to get their music out the door and into the world. Guess what happens once legal electronic music distributon services proliferate? You won't need some multibillion-dollar excuse for a company to get recognition. You simply encode your music in the proper format, fill out some electronic forms, pay the fees, and upload your music!
That will be a day of celebration.

WM.
Jul 14, 2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
This is actually very much a two edged sword. If the argument is successful that purchasing a book or CD is a (materials +) license purchase, then, if you keep your proof of purchase and something happens to the book or CD, you should be able to purchase a replacement for cost of materials only (which should be a small fraction of the original cost). I'm sure that the copyright loby is well aware of this implication and they are appropriately cautious about asserting that you're purchasing a license.
Wow, excellent point. Does anyone know where we're at on this--have any copyright holders tried to assert that, as you put it, "purchasing a book or CD is a (materials +) license purchase"?

WM

WM.
Jul 14, 2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Trekkie
I don't care *what* argument you come up with. The ability to make a perfect copy of something and give it to whomever you want, either via p2p, email, CDs, floppies, or a number 2 pencil you are stealing. plain and simple.

Yes, if you give it to whomever you want you are stealing, but the problem comes when you're just trying to exercise your fair use rights--making a perfect copy isn't always stealing. But it sounds like it is prevented in many cases under many of these DRM schemes, and that's what makes people angry.

WM

Wonder Boy
Jul 14, 2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by whfsdude
Ugh Apple! People don't respond well to force. I won't use the iTunes Music Store anymore if I can't re-rip into AAC.

I agree. Actually, the more I use iTMS, the less I like it.

MacSlut
Jul 14, 2003, 05:52 PM
Anything within the range of 96KHZ will be audible to some people. Rupert Neve has demonstrated that many people can hear a distinct clarity in sounds that have a bump around 54KHZ (outside the range of natural human hearing). Any watermark has the potential to completely destroy music for those with acute hearing.

There's a difference between being audible and being noticeable. I've done lots of research and testing in subliminal messages in audio recordings and can tell you that it's very easy to mix in signals to an audio file in such a way that it would go completely unnoticed by all I tested it with. I did this with messages as well as with data which I could then extract from the audio file. The data I was mixing in was far more complex than just some copy flag bits.

Second, a lot of you seem VERY confused about what happens when you buy music. You don't all the sudden "Own" that music, you just bought a license to listen to it.

I understand that when I buy a CD I don't buy the music, but what sucks is that it's the record companies that are restricting what I really want to do with it...and that is to mix songs to use in videos, make custom compilations or custom mix versions of songs all for personal use. As far as the artist is concerned, there is no harm in me doing this...there's really no harm to the record companies either, but they don't care about any of this...they just want to have absolute control over everything. They're greedy, corrupt and deserve to be stolen from.

If we don't "fight" the system, we can expect 10 artists a year that are all Britanny Speers and ever evolving formats where we have to purchase new copies all the time for every format and every device and can't do any customizations.

DRM is inevitable, no matter how much we hate it. Apple never said they were against DRM, but they said that they would do it if there were a proper solution, IIRC. Maybe they have found out how to do it properly.

DRM is NOT inevitable, it's impossible...especially when it comes to audio. I had thought that CSS seemed like a real barrier to copying, but OMG that did not take long at all.

Audio is far more difficult to protect...actually it's is impossible to protect without eliminating current audio devices. They want to watermark audio...I say, "bring it on!" The watermarking systems I've seen to date are very easy to get around.

As long as normal off-the-shelf CDs don't have this, I'm fine. Any copy-protection on those CDs will result in me boycotting it. I already refuse to buy any album with EMI's CopyControl on it - it's a shame when technology will stop be from buying Ben Harper and Norah Jones.

I *LOVE* those CDs! I get all "copy-protected" CDs that are issued...not so much that I like the music (it usually sucks), but I never pass up a freebie. All you have to do is buy the CD (more like leave a deposit) and then take the disk home and copy it (current "protection" is a joke and anyone who can surf the web knows how to disable it). Then return the disk for a refund because it doesn't play in your CD player! Only once did they ask to see what type of player I had, and I invited them out to my car (which happens to have a CD-ROM for the CD player).

LethalWolfe
Jul 14, 2003, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Analog Kid
No, I think you are very confused about the differences between copyright and software licensing. There are very specific "fair use" protections to the consumer for making personal copies of copyrighted material, excerpting material for the sake of review, and even making copies for non-commercial distribution-- ie. making a tape for a friend.

The whole reason for the EULAs attached to most software is that they are asserting restrictions beyond copyright.

If you are refering to the Fair Use section of copyright law it does not give you permission to make personnal copies let alone distribute complete versions of copyrighted materials to your friends i.e. mixing a tape for a friend. In short, Fair Use covers news, reviews, academic/educational, and research uses. And even those exceptions are limited to using just segments of the original work. For example, a local news channel could not air all of T3 then review the movie and try to hide behind Fair Use. The amount of material you can use varies and depends on the original work. I know that CART (Championship Auto Racing Teams) avoids confusion/gray areas w/news channels/stations by specifying<sp?>, in writing, that only 3 or 4 minutes of race footage/hi-lights can be aired w/in a 24hr period (I can't remember the exact amount).


Lethal

frozenstar
Jul 14, 2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
If you are refering to the Fair Use section of copyright law it does not give you permission to make personnal copies let alone distribute complete versions of copyrighted materials to your friends i.e. mixing a tape for a friend.

I'm no lawyer, but everything I've read about Fair Use says that you are allowed to make personal copies of copyrighted material without the consent of the owner.

VIREBEL661
Jul 14, 2003, 08:07 PM
If this means you can't burn downloaded songs, that sucks, and there'll be a way around it - just far less convient than iTunes... If it means you can't burn mp3's of stuff you own, that more than sucks, and again, there'll be a way around it... I think the majority of folks out there will try to be honest with their purchases and stuff... Who does this thing hurt? Not pirates, because they'll get the stuff no matter what... Hurts the ordinary honest consumer in my opinion...

VIREBEL661
Jul 14, 2003, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by frozenstar
I'm no lawyer, but everything I've read about Fair Use says that you are allowed to make personal copies of copyrighted material without the consent of the owner.

You are correct...

VIREBEL661
Jul 14, 2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Raiden
I agree 100% with that statement.

Ok, I get annoyed when I hear this DRM palladium type stuff. I dont have many CDs because they are so expensive. In my area, 17 bucks for new CDs. Its damn near rediculous. Im a bag boy at a grocerie store. I dont make much cash. So when corperate big-whigs tell me that I cant (as someone said before) burn a CD for my girlfriend, or I cant trade a few of my fav songs with a friend, or I cant add "x" song to my PC that I payed 2000 bucks for, I get will get really pissed!

I swear, I will boycott to hell this kind of stuff. I will stop buying CDs, I will not buy any computer that has any type of hard DRM on it (and I will think reeeal hard if it has soft DRM), and I will personally send emails, letters, etc to any and all DRM associated companies. I would even go so far to protest publically in front of buildings if I have to.

Man is my blood boiling right now!! :mad: :mad: :eek: :( :o :)

Me too!! Like I said, it hurts the average consumer... Someone pirating songs (or software for that matter) will find ways around this sort of thing... I always have ;)... and they won't be able to stop me (or the million others like me)! OMG, is the RIAA reading this now??? JUST KIDDING!!!:D

LethalWolfe
Jul 14, 2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by frozenstar
I'm no lawyer, but everything I've read about Fair Use says that you are allowed to make personal copies of copyrighted material without the consent of the owner.

Straight from the horses mouth.

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

No mention of personal uses as far as I can tell.

What you might be thinking of, however, is something that some people call a consumer's bill of rights. For example, back in the 80's the courts ruled that it is legal for people to use their VCRs to tape TV shows for later personal viewing. Or other things such as these. (http://www.digitalconsumer.org/bill.html)

While the courts have ruled that consumers do have the right to, for example, dub their CD so they can listen to it on their walkman or iPod this sort of proteciton is not provided by Fair Use. It's like citing the 2nd Amendment when debting Freedom of Speech. Yes we have Freedom of Speech, but no it's not covered under the 2nd Amendment.

The distincion between Fair Use and the "consumers bill of rights" must be made because they are two seperate things that provide very different protections.


Lethal

EDIT: Originally posted by VIREBEL661
You are correct...

No he's not. ;)

Analog Kid
Jul 14, 2003, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by Trekkie
So you won't use iTMS or any new version of iTunes because it won't let you steal music and give it away to other people?

Sharing with friends is fair use and legal under the Home Recording Act.

This was the loophole that mp3.com tried to slip through on, but couldn't because the courts found that the sharing was not just restricted to friends.

VIREBEL661
Jul 14, 2003, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Straight from the horses mouth.




http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

No mention of personal uses as far as I can tell.

What you might be thinking of, however, is something that some people call a consumer's bill of rights. For example, back in the 80's the courts ruled that it is legal for people to use their VCRs to tape TV shows for later personal viewing. Or other things such as these. (http://www.digitalconsumer.org/bill.html)

While the courts have ruled that consumers do have the right to, for example, dub their CD so they can listen to it on their walkman or iPod this sort of proteciton is not provided by Fair Use. It's like citing the 2nd Amendment when debting Freedom of Speech. Yes we have Freedom of Speech, but no it's not covered under the 2nd Amendment.

The distincion between Fair Use and the "consumers bill of rights" must be made because they are two seperate things that provide very different protections.


Lethal

EDIT:

No he's not. ;)

Same difference.... When you purchase a cd you can do whatever you want with the music personally, but don't have the right to distribute it - this is my understanding... Soooo, you can burn comp cd's of cd's you already own for yourself, use them on your computer, make tapes, etc.... Again you just don't have the right to distribute or resell these cd's... What, you work for the copyright office??? Then I HAVE TO TALK TO YOU - I have some copyrights that are taking FOREVER to get back :D!!!! (Just kidding - SMILE - it's a joke!!!)

Analog Kid
Jul 14, 2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
If you are refering to the Fair Use section of copyright law it does not give you permission to make personnal copies let alone distribute complete versions of copyrighted materials to your friends i.e. mixing a tape for a friend. In short, Fair Use covers news, reviews, academic/educational, and research uses. And even those exceptions are limited to using just segments of the original work. For example, a local news channel could not air all of T3 then review the movie and try to hide behind Fair Use. The amount of material you can use varies and depends on the original work. I know that CART (Championship Auto Racing Teams) avoids confusion/gray areas w/news channels/stations by specifying<sp?>, in writing, that only 3 or 4 minutes of race footage/hi-lights can be aired w/in a 24hr period (I can't remember the exact amount).

Lethal

Actually I was referring to both the "fair use" provisions and the additonal protections under the Home Recording Act.

And as I mentioned, things that are commmercial (reviews) are indeed limited to excerpts (segments). Last I looked the HRA did not make the same restrictons on non-commercial use.

LethalWolfe
Jul 14, 2003, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by VIREBEL661
Same difference.... When you purchase a cd you can do whatever you want with the music personally, but don't have the right to distribute it - this is my understanding... Soooo, you can burn comp cd's of cd's you already own for yourself, use them on your computer, make tapes, etc.... Again you just don't have the right to distribute or resell these cd's... What, you work for the copyright office??? Then I HAVE TO TALK TO YOU - I have some copyrights that are taking FOREVER to get back :D!!!! (Just kidding - SMILE - it's a joke!!!)

Nope, don't work for the copyright office but I do work in post production so copyrights come up every now and then. ;)

The problem seems to be that people, when talking about copyrights, are using the term "Fair Use" as a general term when in fact it has very a specific, legal definetion (which is what I posted in my previously).

Making personal copies is allowed by law, but it's not covered under Fair Use. When people discuss the rights they have it usually helps if they understand those rights and where they come from. As I said before, if we were discussing Freedom of Speech and you kept saying that the Fourth Amendment grants us Freedom of Speech you would be wrong.

Forgive me if I seem a bit irritated but this is just a major, major pet peeve of mine. Is it too much to ask for people to use the correct terminology and understand what parts of the law give them what protections? ;)


Lethal

LethalWolfe
Jul 14, 2003, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Analog Kid
Actually I was referring to both the "fair use" provisions and the additonal protections under the Home Recording Act.

And as I mentioned, things that are commmercial (reviews) are indeed limited to excerpts (segments). Last I looked the HRA did not make the same restrictons on non-commercial use.


I wasn't aware you were refering to both sense you only mentioned one. I guess I'm so used to people not knowing what they are talking when it comes to stuff like this that I no longer give people the bennifit of the doubt and I've become rather anal about the whole thing. :o


Lethal

Analog Kid
Jul 14, 2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Trekkie

People want something for free and are upset that people want them to pay for things that they put their effort into.


Wrong! I don't want anything for free. I want the ability to use what I've bought in a way I can predict for the life of the product. I don't want to have to buy one copy for my car, one for my computer, one for my iPod and an extra license to mix a tape for my girlfriend.

I don't use file sharing services and never have. Just don't like 'em.

Originally posted by Trekkie

I don't care *what* argument you come up with. The ability to make a perfect copy of something and give it to whomever you want, either via p2p, email, CDs, floppies, or a number 2 pencil you are stealing. plain and simple.

Oh my... No. The ability to do anything is not illegal. You have the ability to crack a Louisville Slugger over anyones head but we don't confiscate it.

Doing is illegal.
The ability to do is not.

Very, very important difference.

Originally posted by Trekkie

What's even worse, is all the flap & stuff so far in this forum is probably a huge overreaction. I'm betting that this entire DRM discussion is so that DVD-Audio and SACDs will work with iTunes. The Music industry put in so much copy protection into these two devices that you can't even use a simple digital out (toslink or coax) and have to use a seperated 5.1 output from your SACD or DVD-A player directly into an amplifier. So right now the one SACD i have has never been listened to because I have a pre/pro setup that doesn't have an analog bypass.

Then I get to the end of your post and start to wonder if you don't see the irony yourself...

Better not use anything but that 5.1 out or you're stealing, plain and simple! :D

Analog Kid
Jul 14, 2003, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I wasn't aware you were refering to both sense you only mentioned one. I guess I'm so used to people not knowing what they are talking when it comes to stuff like this that I no longer give people the bennifit of the doubt and I've become rather anal about the whole thing. :o

Lethal

No worries, we all get anal about different things. I've been trying to not capitalize and to use quotes around "fair use" to use it as shorthand for a body of protections-- all of which I consider "fair". ;)

If I wind up in court I'll try to get more specific.

VIREBEL661
Jul 14, 2003, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Nope, don't work for the copyright office but I do work in post production so copyrights come up every now and then. ;)

The problem seems to be that people, when talking about copyrights, are using the term "Fair Use" as a general term when in fact it has very a specific, legal definetion (which is what I posted in my previously).

Making personal copies is allowed by law, but it's not covered under Fair Use. When people discuss the rights they have it usually helps if they understand those rights and where they come from. As I said before, if we were discussing Freedom of Speech and you kept saying that the Fourth Amendment grants us Freedom of Speech you would be wrong.

Forgive me if I seem a bit irritated but this is just a major, major pet peeve of mine. Is it too much to ask for people to use the correct terminology and understand what parts of the law give them what protections? ;)


Lethal

OK, my bad - so be it!!!

frozenstar
Jul 14, 2003, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Straight from the horses mouth.
<SNIP>


Like I said, I'm no lawyer, but I just found a dozen credible sources on the web that say making personal copies of legally purchased multimedia is permitted under the "Fair Use" terms in copyright law.

Here's a link to a page on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website that explains Fair Use.
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html

If that source is not credible enough, let me know and I'll post some more. But I really don't have to. You can do a Google search yourself.

LethalWolfe
Jul 14, 2003, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by frozenstar
Like I said, I'm no lawyer, but I just found a dozen credible sources on the web that say making personal copies of legally purchased multimedia is permitted under the "Fair Use" terms in copyright law.

Here's a link to a page on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website that explains Fair Use.
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html

If that source is not credible enough, let me know and I'll post some more. But I really don't have to. You can do a Google search yourself.

Why do I have to Google to search for someone else's interpurpitation of the law which I quoted, and linked to the exact legal definetion of "Fair Use" as defined by the Copyright Act? Did you read my other posts where I talked about people misusing terminology?

Like I said before... Many people have started using the term"fair use" as a generic phrase for consumer rights in regards to media copying/xfering, usage, ownership, ect., when, in fact, the term "Fair Use" has a very specific, legal definetion under copyright law (which is the text and link I posted a few posts up). Some people don't mind that the term Fair Use is becoming a watered down, generic phrase but I do (again, something I mentioned in previous posts) and I will usually correct people whenever I see them misuse the term, as mentioned in a previous post, it's a pet peeve.

Now, Fair Use isn't the end all be all of consumer rights regarding media so a lot of rights we do have, like ones mentioned in the link you provided, get shoved under the Fair Use umbrella, even though they don't belong, because it's easier to summerize and condense everything under a single catch phrase than it is explain all the different laws, acts, and court decissions that make up our rights as consumers seperately and in their entirety.


Lethal

maka
Jul 15, 2003, 03:14 AM
If you read the page about Fair Use in the EFF, they state that making copies for personal use is covered under the Fair Use part of the Copyright law. It seems it's quite vage, and the cases stated by it are not limiting...

About DRM, I think they have to find a way to ensure all the customers rights are respected, but I also think DRM should be optional. Were I to sell my music on the iTunes store, I'd only do it if the files were DRM free, and I'm sure there are more artists that feel this way.

Keep reading the EFF page, their Open Audio License is nice, and I strongly feel this is the way to go with music.

LethalWolfe
Jul 16, 2003, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by maka
If you read the page about Fair Use in the EFF, they state that making copies for personal use is covered under the Fair Use part of the Copyright law. It seems it's quite vage, and the cases stated by it are not limiting...

About DRM, I think they have to find a way to ensure all the customers rights are respected, but I also think DRM should be optional. Were I to sell my music on the iTunes store, I'd only do it if the files were DRM free, and I'm sure there are more artists that feel this way.

Keep reading the EFF page, their Open Audio License is nice, and I strongly feel this is the way to go with music.

If you are refering to the page that frozenstar linked to I did read it and they are not entirely correct. They have included personal uses such as space shifting and time shifting as part of the Fair Use law when it is not. You do have the legal right to time shift and space shift media, but those rights are not covered under Fair Use as stated in copyright law. Time and space shifting are legal protections covered by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (which has roots from the "Betamax" case from 1984). I assume they lumped those uses under the Fair Use protections in an attempt to better summerize and simplify what people's rights are in these situations.

As I said before, I think part of the confusion also stems from the fact that the people use the words "fair use" as a generic phrase when in fact Fair Use has a specific legal definition in copyright law.


Lethal

eric_n_dfw
Oct 14, 2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by bikertwin
DRM is one thing, what about restricting hardware choices?

As .Mac users are aware, Apple recently updated the Backup application that comes with .Mac so that it only writes to original, Apple-installed CD and DVD burners.

This means anyone who buys an add-on CD or DVD burner cannot use it to backup their data. This includes people who have Cubes or iMacs or PowerBooks that did not have CD burners originally. There is no way for them to back up using this application.

Is Apple using Backup as a testing ground? Might they remove CD burning on non-Apple burners from iTunes 5? Has anyone heard rumors to this effect? Do you mind that Apple is taking this step? How do you think hardware manufacturers will respond?

There is a discussion of this in the "PowerMac G5 Keyboard, Displays, an Other Rumors" thread on Page Two. Are you talking about Backup 2 Public Beta?

If so, then what crack are you smoking?