PDA

View Full Version : 'DVD Jon' Launches Doubletwist: Share and Sync Protected iTunes Music




MacRumors
Feb 19, 2008, 05:20 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Jon Lech Johansen ("DVD Jon") launched DoubleTwist (http://doubletwist.com/) today, a venture that was originally reported (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/10/25/doubletwist-licensing-fairplay-apple-itunes-drm/) back in October 2006. DVD Jon originally gained notoriety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lech_Johansen) (and his nickname) for his involvement in releasing the DeCSS software that allowed the bypassing of DVD copy protection. Since then, he has made headlines with the release of QTFairUse (http://www.macrumors.com/2003/11/22/qtfairuse-itunes-digital-rights-management-drm-circumvented/) which decoded Apple's FairPlay digital rights system for iTunes.

The early reports (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/10/25/doubletwist-licensing-fairplay-apple-itunes-drm/) about DoubleTwist suggested that DVD Jon had reverse engineered Apple's FairPlay copy protection and planned on licensing it to other companies. Today's launch, however, is a much different product.

DoubleTwist states its mission is to "enable consumers to enjoy their digital media on the widest possible range of devices." To that end, DoubleTwist has introduced a product called doubleTwist desktop which allows users to sync and share media between different devices, handling the necessary format conversions transparently.With digital media such as video from a friend’s cell phone or your own iTunes playlists, it’s a jungle out there. It can be an hour-long exercise in futility to convert files to the correct format and transfer them to your Sony PSP or your phone
...
Our goal is to provide a simple and well integrated solution that the average consumer can use to eliminate the headaches associated with their expanding digital universe.”


CNet describes (http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9873241-7.html) how the software works: When a device is plugged into a PC (Windows XP and Vista only right now, Mac OS X coming soon), DoubleTwist launches and recognizes all the media files on the device. Any file can be selected, dragged, and dropped into DoubleTwist to be synched up to a separate device, or shared with other users you've "friended" who also use DoubleTwist.According to Cnet, DoubleTwist will also import and convert protected AACs (purchased iTunes songs) into MP3s so they will be playable by other devices. The official DoubleTwist (http://www.doubletwist.com/) site appears to downplay this functionality, only listing mp3, aac/m4a, wma, and wav amongst supported audio formats. Statements (http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23242275-5014239,00.html) by DoubleTwist's founder, however, confirm that the software will do this, but is only capable of converting songs that you are authorized to play.

A Mac OS X client and iPhone web-app are expected in Q2 2008.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/02/19/dvd-jon-launches-doubletwist-share-and-sync-protected-itunes-music/)



Eidorian
Feb 19, 2008, 05:23 PM
I'll stick with ripping my CDs in Max. From what I've read it does pull of a virtual burn to CD and then rips the tracks from there.

arn
Feb 19, 2008, 05:24 PM
how their bypassing copy protection works

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23242275-5014239,00.html

DoubleTwist's method for opening up copy-protected formats is to replay a song in fast-forward mode and capture a copy of the audio track by re-recording it.

It's essentially the same process as when a user "rips," or copies, a CD onto a computer.

"Users can only play back the music they have already purchased and they are authorized to play," said Monique Farantzos, 34, doubleTwists's co-founder and chief executive.

One hundred songs can be converted in half an hour or so.

DoubleTwist estimates the trick results in about five per cent degradation in sound-quality, similar to CD duplication.

christall109
Feb 19, 2008, 05:27 PM
Interesting.... What about video bought through the iTunes Store? I would love to be able to get that content (almost 3 full seasons of The Office) on to my Xbox 360 via connect360.

milo
Feb 19, 2008, 05:27 PM
"DoubleTwist estimates the trick results in about five per cent degradation in sound-quality, similar to CD duplication."

Huh?

CD duplication results in essentially no degradation in sound quality. Even things like errors like scratches can be corrected perfectly using error correction in the vast majority of cases. (unless they mean something else by "cd duplication")

arn
Feb 19, 2008, 05:28 PM
"DoubleTwist estimates the trick results in about five per cent degradation in sound-quality, similar to CD duplication."

Huh?

CD duplication results in essentially no degradation in sound quality. Even things like errors like scratches can be corrected perfectly using error correction in the vast majority of cases.

I think they're referring to burning/ripping of protected AACs. which do re-compress previous compressed music.

arn

nxent
Feb 19, 2008, 05:28 PM
yeh i figured somenoe would figure out a way to create mp3's from apple's music files this way sooner or later. the real trick, however, would be to break the video encryption apple uses.

Harpo
Feb 19, 2008, 05:30 PM
"DoubleTwist estimates the trick results in about five per cent degradation in sound-quality, similar to CD duplication."

Huh?

CD duplication results in essentially no degradation in sound quality. Even things like errors like scratches can be corrected perfectly using error correction in the vast majority of cases. (unless they mean something else by "cd duplication")

I think they mean the current method of removing Fairplay protection -- burn the protected AAC files to a CD and re-rip to the desired format.

Edit: Arn thought so before me.

oban14
Feb 19, 2008, 05:32 PM
yeh i figured somenoe would figure out a way to create mp3's from apple's music files this way sooner or later. the real trick, however, would be to break the video encryption apple uses.

I believe this software can do that. If not, just give it a couple of months. DRM always loses eventually.

theddie
Feb 19, 2008, 05:33 PM
so i guess i am unclear on this product? it enables us to put any type of media that we have on any playback deivce? sorry for being naive but still... not too sure?

mekopolis
Feb 19, 2008, 05:34 PM
should drive more business to itunes if non ipod consumers want to purchase itunes only music

kuebby
Feb 19, 2008, 05:34 PM
I'll stick with ripping my CDs in Max. From what I've read it does pull of a virtual burn to CD and then rips the tracks from there.

Same here, but I totally support the idea. Converting audio and video between formats has always been a pain but hopefully this will make it easier.

I didn't see this anywhere, how can it be free? This seems like the kind of app that should cost something, at least so he can recoup the time and money he spent cracking Fairplay.

mekopolis
Feb 19, 2008, 05:36 PM
so i guess i am unclear on this product? it enables us to put any type of media that we have on any playback deivce? sorry for being naive but still... not too sure?

from my understanding it will harvest all of your media files on your machine, like music, and pictures, and you select the devices that you want your media to be synced to...and it will do all the conversions like taking ACC format music to mp3 to work on a non ipod device, or taking .wma and converting it to work on your ipod

does it do video?

Eidorian
Feb 19, 2008, 05:38 PM
how their bypassing copy protection works

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23242275-5014239,00.htmlI'm too far into the bleeding edge. :rolleyes:

Same here, but I totally support the idea. Converting audio and video between formats has always been a pain but hopefully this will make it easier.

I didn't see this anywhere, how can it be free? This seems like the kind of app that should cost something, at least so he can recoup the time and money he spent cracking Fairplay.To me it just seems like yet another fancy AppleScript to burn your protected music or use some minor loophole that'll go from lossy to lossy.

mekopolis
Feb 19, 2008, 05:38 PM
how can it be free? This seems like the kind of app that should cost something, at least so he can recoup the time and money he spent cracking Fairplay.

makes him more famous

bookdeal? b class movie?

or at least once he gets enough users consuming the product, revenue from advertising, or charge for updates could be initiated

Can
Feb 19, 2008, 05:39 PM
...

I didn't see this anywhere, how can it be free? This seems like the kind of app that should cost something, at least so he can recoup the time and money he spent cracking Fairplay.

This guy is FREE stuff only. He was a young hacker with ideas. Not the kind of guy that charge money for products, unless it is company related software.

arn
Feb 19, 2008, 05:54 PM
Note that this also strips Windows Media DRM. It could be a useful tool for people wanting to jump from Windows Media to iTunes or vice versa

arn

geveke
Feb 19, 2008, 05:58 PM
This guy is FREE stuff only. He was a young hacker with ideas. Not the kind of guy that charge money for products, unless it is company related software.

What's wrong with charging money for your work? O, I get it: better not charge money for ripping off other people's work...
I don't like DRM either, beacause it mostly benefits record companies and studios, not artists. But this isn't what is needed to make everything "fair play". I think we should pay for our tunes, but we oughta have a way to make sure the artists get paid, not the companies that made zillions on the transition from LP to CD, and then complained about digital theft. Why did they need Apple to find a solution for online music trade? Because they had no vision, they had no strategy, they were used to us handing over our money. They deserved to get punished for this. But not the artists. Let's make sure they get paid.

happydude
Feb 19, 2008, 05:58 PM
yeh i figured somenoe would figure out a way to create mp3's from apple's music files this way sooner or later. the real trick, however, would be to break the video encryption apple uses.

no doubt. all i want to do is take the music videos some itunes albums come with that they don't include as AAC's and convert the sound to AAC or mp3 so i can play the music over my airtunes. for example, bob dylan's "modern times" comes with 4 amazing works as videos but i can't get the music. when i'm playing the album over airtunes, whenever the videos come up the sound stops until that video is done. to me, this is stupid. i own the freakin movie, let me play the music however i want.

Can
Feb 19, 2008, 06:14 PM
What's wrong with charging money for your work? ...

Nothing is wrong with charging people for your work. Im just saying that Jon had visions with this software and that the vision was not to make money.

Note that the main functions for this software is not to cripple DRM but to be able to share digital media from/to every media device you may have. :)

cyberjunky
Feb 19, 2008, 06:29 PM
How will this affect iTunes, in apples agreements with major brands, are they not required to pull their media off itunes if FairPlay is defeated?

FakeWozniak
Feb 19, 2008, 06:40 PM
yeh i figured somenoe would figure out a way to create mp3's from apple's music files this way sooner or later. the real trick, however, would be to break the video encryption apple uses.

iTunes has always been able to burn Audio CDs from purchased music. Then you can re-rip the AIFF files into MP3s with iTunes again. I would imagine this free program constitutes simulating a burn to a virtual CD drive through program level (as opposed to GUI level) iTunes hooks. Try running the program with iTunes uninstalled as an experiment (I won't run his program).

He won't be able to do video LEGALLY with any ease. I suppose one could simulate a video card driver and then catch the raw data. Recoding and synchronization of audio and video will be difficult.

Di9it8
Feb 19, 2008, 06:47 PM
b class movie?



DVD Jon DVD only available on iTunes??:eek:

elppa
Feb 19, 2008, 06:47 PM
How will this affect iTunes, in apples agreements with major brands, are they not required to pull their media off itunes if FairPlay is defeated?

Well FairPlay™ is still in tact. This product doesn't crack or defeat FairPlay. It will not remove the DRM from a FairPlay protected track. If it did, then it would be all stations go at Apple to protect their contracts.

This is the digital equivalent of burning a disc with fairplay tracks and ripping it back onto the computer to remove the DRM. Only without the discs.

gikku
Feb 19, 2008, 07:33 PM
"You need a PC running Windows XP or Vista." :(

http://www.doubletwist.com/dt/Download/Index.dt

Sandfleaz
Feb 19, 2008, 07:35 PM
DRM just doesn't work from a marketing perspective.
I actually think this will be good for Apple.
.

kuebby
Feb 19, 2008, 07:41 PM
This guy is FREE stuff only. He was a young hacker with ideas. Not the kind of guy that charge money for products, unless it is company related software.

What's wrong with charging money for your work? O, I get it: better not charge money for ripping off other people's work...
I don't like DRM either, beacause it mostly benefits record companies and studios, not artists. But this isn't what is needed to make everything "fair play". I think we should pay for our tunes, but we oughta have a way to make sure the artists get paid, not the companies that made zillions on the transition from LP to CD, and then complained about digital theft. Why did they need Apple to find a solution for online music trade? Because they had no vision, they had no strategy, they were used to us handing over our money. They deserved to get punished for this. But not the artists. Let's make sure they get paid.

I totally agree. He wrote the software. He is (or could be) a software writer by professional. Why shouldn't he get paid for it? I'd pay for this software, especially with an iPhone version.

oban14
Feb 19, 2008, 07:43 PM
Same here, but I totally support the idea. Converting audio and video between formats has always been a pain but hopefully this will make it easier.

I didn't see this anywhere, how can it be free? This seems like the kind of app that should cost something, at least so he can recoup the time and money he spent cracking Fairplay.

There are plenty of people out there who do things like this for free, to combat what they see as evil.

God bless 'em!

oban14
Feb 19, 2008, 07:45 PM
What's wrong with charging money for your work? O, I get it: better not charge money for ripping off other people's work...
I don't like DRM either, beacause it mostly benefits record companies and studios, not artists. But this isn't what is needed to make everything "fair play". I think we should pay for our tunes, but we oughta have a way to make sure the artists get paid, not the companies that made zillions on the transition from LP to CD, and then complained about digital theft. Why did they need Apple to find a solution for online music trade? Because they had no vision, they had no strategy, they were used to us handing over our money. They deserved to get punished for this. But not the artists. Let's make sure they get paid.

Go to a show, buy the CDs there, and go buy a t-shirt. If you think the artists are making any money on iTunes you're kidding yourself.

oban14
Feb 19, 2008, 07:48 PM
How will this affect iTunes, in apples agreements with major brands, are they not required to pull their media off itunes if FairPlay is defeated?

FairPlay has been defeated for years. I think the notable aspect of this software is that it makes it much easier for noobs to deal with.

theBB
Feb 19, 2008, 08:24 PM
Go to a show, buy the CDs there, and go buy a t-shirt. If you think the artists are making any money on iTunes you're kidding yourself.
It is not my fault if they sign with a greedy record company. If they are on their own and there some who are, they get almost 70% of the revenues. If they sign with an indie record company they would get lower, but still a substantial percentage. If they work with one of the biggest four, then who knows, but they would not do business with them unless they get something valuable in return. Otherwise it is their fault.

If I like only one of some band's songs enough to buy on iTunes, what makes you think I'll go to an overpriced concert of theirs. I am pretty sure most people who "steal" songs don't go to the concerts of every artist they have "exploited."

theBB
Feb 19, 2008, 08:26 PM
There are plenty of people out there who do things like this for free, to combat what they see as evil.

God bless 'em!
Double Twist seems to have raised VC money, so there must be some kind of income stream, at least in the near future. Somebody has to pay the bills.

oban14
Feb 19, 2008, 08:29 PM
It is not my fault if they sign with a greedy record company. If they are on their own and there some who are, they get almost 70% of the revenues. If they sign with an indie record company they would get lower, but still a substantial percentage. If they work with one of the biggest four, then who knows, but they would not do business with them unless they get something valuable in return. Otherwise it is their fault.

If I like only one of some band's songs enough to buy on iTunes, what makes you think I'll go to an overpriced concert of theirs. I am pretty sure most people who "steal" songs don't go to the concerts of every artist they have "exploited."


Well, for starters copyright infringement isn't theft or stealing. That said it's still illegal and probably immoral depending on what you're copying and how the copyright holder feels about it. I was responding to someone who wanted to know how best to support artists, and I told them. The best way to support artists is to go to their shows and buy merchandise from them. If they're smaller artists, you're much better off buying CDs directly from the band's website or at one of their concerts.

Personally, I won't pay for anything digital. I'm just a physical media kind of guy. I like the vastly superior sound quality, freedom to buy/sell/lend the disks, and the freedom to rip in any format and any quality.

oban14
Feb 19, 2008, 08:31 PM
Double Twist seems to have raised VC money, so there must be some kind of income stream, at least in the near future. Somebody has to pay the bills.

There are plenty of ways to generate revenue outside of selling software. Advertisements, service, special "enterprise editions"... they're out there.

Wiggin
Feb 19, 2008, 08:38 PM
This is the digital equivalent of making cassette tape copies of my CDs so I could play them in my car (no CD player). DoubleTwist is the patch-cord between the CD player (protected music file) and the tape deck (MP3). Just like I wasn't "cracking" the CD format to make the tape, he's not defeating/decoding/circumventing FairPlay.

But here's the catch, DoubleTwist also includes functionality to send the music file to your friend's Facebook account and other places. In the past, in the US, courts have said that peer-to-peer software developers can't be held liable for what content their customers share using their software unless they provide explicit assistance to their customers in sharing copyrighted content. For example, if they provide instructions or specific functions intended to share copyrighted content.

By that measure, it appears that DoubleTwist would have a tough time defending itself in a US court if it ever came to that.

oban14
Feb 19, 2008, 08:43 PM
This is the digital equivalent of making cassette tape copies of my CDs so I could play them in my car (no CD player). DoubleTwist is the patch-cord between the CD player (protected music file) and the tape deck (MP3). Just like I wasn't "cracking" the CD format to make the tape, he's not defeating/decoding/circumventing FairPlay.

But here's the catch, DoubleTwist also includes functionality to send the music file to your friend's Facebook account and other places. In the past, in the US, courts have said that peer-to-peer software developers can't be held liable for what content their customers share using their software unless they provide explicit assistance to their customers in sharing copyrighted content. For example, if they provide instructions or specific functions intended to share copyrighted content.

By that measure, it appears that DoubleTwist would have a tough time defending itself in a US court if it ever came to that.

I don't think Double Twist does that. There are ways to strip FairPlay without any lossiness, this is one of them:

http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/2006/09/06/strip-apples-fairplay-drm-from-your-music-files-in-batches-with-myfairtunes6/

I don't know how they would hold up in court, but my understanding is that they are billing this product as something you can use for fair use (copying a song you bought on iTunes over to your PSP for example) as well as transferring non-copyrighted material from one format to another. So unless they're encouraging people to send copyrighted songs to friends, they should do fine. I'm no lawyer though.

theBB
Feb 19, 2008, 08:49 PM
There are plenty of ways to generate revenue outside of selling software. Advertisements, service, special "enterprise editions"... they're out there.
You said they are doing this not for the money, but they wanted to fight evil, but it turns out they did it for the money. Whether they get paid by software sales or advertisement is irrelevant. Like I've said before, somebody has to pay the bills.

Apparently it is only evil as long as it messes with somebody else's business plan. If somebody finds a way to use their software without the end user having to view any ads, I'd like to see how calmly they will react.

oban14
Feb 19, 2008, 08:53 PM
You said they are doing this not for the money, but they wanted to fight evil, but it turns out they did it for the money. Whether they get paid by software sales or advertisement is irrelevant. Like I've said before, somebody has to pay the bills.

Apparently it is only evil as long as it messes with somebody else's business plan. If somebody finds a way to use their software without the end user having to view any ads, I'd like to see how calmly they will react.

You should probably read up more on DVD Jon before you make sweeping accusations about him doing this "for the money".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvd_jon

This is a man who has devoted much of his life to fighting DRM in all forms. He's clearly brilliant; VC money often follows brilliant developers even if no suitable business plan is in place. Look at the fellow who created punBB, or Bram Cohen who wrote bittorrent in a crummy Berkeley apartment. They did this not for money, but because they had a belief and a vision.

Then as soon as someone invests in them or their company, you just brush it all aside and say "they're doing it for the money." :rolleyes:

Lots of people out there block all ads. I don't respond to advertising and consider it insulting and obtrusive, so they really aren't losing anything if I block ads. My friends who run blogs and websites could care less.

theBB
Feb 19, 2008, 09:29 PM
Then as soon as someone invests in them or their company, you just brush it all aside and say "they're doing it for the money." :rolleyes:
I am not accusing him of anything. I don't think there is anything wrong with doing something for the money anyways. I just don't like it when other people wrap it into a flag of fighting the "evil" corporations or some such, especially if they don't mind turning it into a corporation of their own.

I don't like it when DRM interferes with my fair use rights, especially if I do not have a way of obtaining DRM free media. This makes his DeCSS worthy for me, as there is no DRM free alternative of watching movies. This does not really apply to iTunes as there are alternatives such as CDs and DRM free online sources. In the end, most people who cry about DRM interfering with their "fair use" rights don't really want to crack DRM for that. They just want to get their hands on a piece of work that they did not pay for.

ltldrummerboy
Feb 19, 2008, 09:58 PM
Note that this also strips Windows Media DRM. It could be a useful tool for people wanting to jump from Windows Media to iTunes or vice versa

Vice versa? Shudder.

oban14
Feb 19, 2008, 10:14 PM
I am not accusing him of anything. I don't think there is anything wrong with doing something for the money anyways. I just don't like it when other people wrap it into a flag of fighting the "evil" corporations or some such, especially if they don't mind turning it into a corporation of their own.

I don't like it when DRM interferes with my fair use rights, especially if I do not have a way of obtaining DRM free media. This makes his DeCSS worthy for me, as there is no DRM free alternative of watching movies. This does not really apply to iTunes as there are alternatives such as CDs and DRM free online sources. In the end, most people who cry about DRM interfering with their "fair use" rights don't really want to crack DRM for that. They just want to get their hands on a piece of work that they did not pay for.

DRM only hurts people who legally pay for stuff. Anyone who wants to get their hands on a piece of work they did not pay for will simply go to a torrent site and download it for free.

That's why I resent DRM. I do think DRM is evil, and I love it when people crack it.

Wiggin
Feb 19, 2008, 10:40 PM
I don't think Double Twist does that. There are ways to strip FairPlay without any lossiness, this is one of them:

http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/2006/09/06/strip-apples-fairplay-drm-from-your-music-files-in-batches-with-myfairtunes6/

I don't know how they would hold up in court, but my understanding is that they are billing this product as something you can use for fair use (copying a song you bought on iTunes over to your PSP for example) as well as transferring non-copyrighted material from one format to another. So unless they're encouraging people to send copyrighted songs to friends, they should do fine. I'm no lawyer though.

And here's another link that says that's exactly what your myfairtunes is doing...playing back the audio file and capturing the audio stream and re-encoding it: "The myFairTunes software captures the audio stream of a song while it's being played in iTunes, and outputs it to an MP3 file. In non-technical terms, you could say that myFairTunes "listens" to the song while it's being played on your computer, and converts it to another format."

http://askbobrankin.com/drm_removal.html

Also, if you take the time to read the links in the original MacRumors article, specifically the one to CNET, it states: "The software automatically plays the song files in the background (sans volume) and re-records them as MP3 files so they can be transferred to any device."

Therefore, my analogy is perfect fine. You are playing the audio on one "device" and recording it on another, with a little loss in quality along the way. Also, there is really nothing new about doing that. You can easily capture Apple's text-to-speech voices and record them to an audio file. You can even do it faster than real-time.

In fact, Rogue Amoeba has sold a product for several years called Audio Hijack that does exactly this, including recording iTunes Fairplay audio.

http://www.rogueamoeba.com/audiohijackpro/

So, basically, the infamous DVD Jon has done nothing but assemble old technology into an integrated package. That's some hacking skills. (You should also note that I believe he was hired to do this...so basically, they bought his name and notoriety to market the product).

Finally, with regard to purpose/intent as the law may be concerned. The doubleTwist home page clearly states: "Send files effortlessly to your Facebook friends and others." Combine that with a claim of circumventing DRM and you could be in trouble. I'm not saying the defense wouldn't be successful, I'm just saying it makes a stronger case against you! The peer-to-peer networks survive by having (claiming) no knowledge or responsibility of what you are doing. DoubleTwist can't make that claim. I forget which one, but a couple of years ago a peer-to-peer network was shut down after being found guilty of aiding users in copyright infringement because they provide assistance specifically for sharing music.

russellb
Feb 19, 2008, 11:03 PM
mmm whoopy dooo

I can already do that with Itunes ... you can burn all your purchased Itunes music onto a CD to give or play on any device ... whats the big deal ?

gusapple
Feb 19, 2008, 11:04 PM
mmm whoopy dooo

I can already do that with Itunes ... you can burn all your purchased Itunes music onto a CD to give or play on any device ... whats the big deal ?

There is no loss of quality with this service.

ridli
Feb 19, 2008, 11:07 PM
Interesting.... What about video bought through the iTunes Store? I would love to be able to get that content (almost 3 full seasons of The Office) on to my Xbox 360 via connect360.

That's what I was hoping for too. Doesn't seem to be the case here. I can't seem to find any indication of removing video drm.

twoodcc
Feb 19, 2008, 11:08 PM
this seems pretty cool. i bet apple doesn't like it though.

i think i'll stick to burning my own cds and ripping them for free

arn
Feb 19, 2008, 11:46 PM
mmm whoopy dooo

I can already do that with Itunes ... you can burn all your purchased Itunes music onto a CD to give or play on any device ... whats the big deal ?

There is no loss of quality with this service.

Actually, the method does introduce loss just like burning to CD.

But the point is that this is much much easier to do than buring to CD and ripping it again, and accessible for non-technical folk.

i think i'll stick to burning my own cds and ripping them for free

This is free too. Actually more free, since you don't need a blank CD.

arn

macFanDave
Feb 20, 2008, 12:11 AM
Now, with all of the VC cash, this DRM cracking has become organized crime, so RICO and racketeering statutes can be enforced.

It was cute when DVD Jon was just some uppity kid making a statement about DRM and "freeing" the music and movies with free software, but now that he is part of a multi-million dollar corporation, he's just another mafioso -- might as well be selling crack to schoolkids.

If you think record company execs are a bunch of greedy, parasitic, blood-sucking, money-grubbing bastards, don't fool yourselves about venture capitalists. Many of both species will be occupying the same corner of Hell!

macFanDave
Feb 20, 2008, 12:13 AM
This is free too. Actually more free, since you don't need a blank CD.

arn

You could use a CD-RW over and over again and it gets closer and closer to free, that is, if your time is worthless.

MagnusVonMagnum
Feb 20, 2008, 12:54 AM
What's wrong with charging money for your work?

Some people (Linux type usually) believe in free information and free software. Other types believe in charging for every little two-bit utility out there (quite common on the Mac as I've seen since I bought this one 9 months ago where even common free things like add-ons for browsers cost money for Safari whereas they are free for Firefox (fortunately even for its Mac incarnation). Personally, I'm used to sticking with free utilities so I find it hard to find useful software on the Mac. That along with piss-poor gaming support, drivers and general video card type hardware options are the Mac's achilles heel, IMO. Maybe you enjoy paying for every little ala carte item (piece-mealed to death), but I don't. And yes I do give free software I've made myself away quite regularly. It's called quid-quo-pro. But then Capitalists tend to hate any system that doesn't involve the transfer of money.



they need Apple to find a solution for online music trade? Because they had no vision, they had no strategy, they were used to us handing over our money. They deserved to get punished for this. But not the artists. Let's make sure they get paid.

How is selling a AAC music file having "vision"? Personally, I don't like compressed music. I have hundreds of CDs (yes I did buy them) and a high-end audio rig. Compression makes the sound quality worse. AAC with a good rate minimizes that (it is one of the better audio codecs), but it's still compressed. The only use I have for iTunes is as a server type function for implementing a whole-house audio system based around using an iPod Touch as a remote control (via wireless network in house) to control iTunes on the server Mac and send it to whatever room (via Airport Express modules connected to DACs via digital out). I intend to use uncompressed WAV files ripped from the CD collection and stored on a 500GB drive (I currently have 300-400 CDs). I don't have any intention of buying music from Apple. Not only do artists not get a 'bigger cut' of the sales, you also have Apple taking their share on top of the music industry's share. I suppose it IS nice to only buy the 1 or 2 hit songs from a given album instead of the whole album, though. OTOH, a good CD club like BMG or Sony can get you entire CDs for an average price of less than $5 an album (compared to getting ripped a new one at the local music stores for $16-18 for CD technology that used to sell for $11-14 despite the fact that it's now cheaper than ever to manufacture them; THAT is the record industry.

The artist's cut is as small as ever BTW. Even huge hit maker artists make very little off album sales. The record company takes the VAST LION SHARE of every album sold. New artists tend to get next to nothing in their contracts. Many one-hit wonders end up working minimum wage jobs again as they are disposed of by the industry when they fail to produce any more mega-hits, which is all the industry really cares about anyway. Most fairly rich artists makes most of their money touring, not from album sales so attending a concert is in fact, usually a better way to support your favorite artist than buying their albums as they typically can get far more money that way than through albums sales.

If people really wanted to see the artist make more money from actual album sales, they should encourage more artists to sell directly to the consumer. This is the digital age, after all and almost anyone can set up their own online stores to sell music digitally straight to the consumer. It seems kind of ironic to me that in 2008, most well known artists are STILL using the ancient recording industry machine that eats up and spits out artists like they're so much garbage. Industry reps get fat off other people's work. Apple gets fat off other people's work even through iTunes. Artists get squat by comparison (typically less than $1 per album sale goes to the artist out of that $18 CD at the record store). An artist selling their own album for $5 a pop directly online is making over 5x what the recording industry would give them per sale. And there is NO reason it can't be done in today's day and age. Heck, MTV doesn't even hardly show any music videos anymore. I don't listen to the OTA radio. It's hard for me to find new music easily. Sites like Pandora Internet Radio (which can suggest new music based on music you tell it you already like) can help quite a bit, IMO. And it can help find artists that you would never otherwise hear on a traditional outlets.

I agree the artists SHOULD be supported, but ultimately, sites like iTunes need to support more independent artists and sites like Pandora should be supported to help you find those artists. You can't support music you love if you can't find that music TO love. OTA Radio hits don't do much for me these days. Maybe I'm not "with it" but some of my favorite artists (e.g. Tori Amos) almost never get traditional airplay let alone trying to find an artist that the industry doesn't care about or has ejected due to lack of hit tunes.

psxndc
Feb 20, 2008, 01:26 AM
You should probably read up more on DVD Jon before you make sweeping accusations about him doing this "for the money".

...

Then as soon as someone invests in them or their company, you just brush it all aside and say "they're doing it for the money." :rolleyes:


Well I don't think he's doing it for the money, I think he's doing it because he doesn't like the rules and so he's trying to rewrite them in a selfish and bullheaded manner.

I've never liked this guy. His whole game has been trying to break the system rather than play by rules and effect change lawfully. "I wanted a DVD decrypter so I could watch movies on Linux." OK, write one for yourself and there you go. But he couldn't keep it to himself and instead published it on the Internet. "I don't like Apple's DRM" so instead of just buying regular CDs, he cracks Apple's DRM and publishes it all over the Internet.

Here's an idea - if you don't like it, don't buy it. It's entertainment, not food. As copyright holders, it is their right to determine how it gets copied (where do you think the name comes from??).

If everyone that was actually annoyed with DRM stopped buying the DRM'ed content, then DRM would go away. But no - he has to have it his way which for some moral reason is better than the **AA having it their way. So he does an end-run around the system. Now the **AAs have ammunition. "Oh noes, they cracked our DRMs and are stealing our contents! Congress, please help us! We gives you lots of monies!" "OK movie/recording industries. We'll save you and pass laws that make such activities illegal! or at least really expensive when you get caught!"

If everyone just stood up an said "No, your content isn't worth it. It isn't worth the price; it isn't worth the restrictions; and it isn't worth the hassle - I'm not buying it and I'll just do without," the media conglomerates would have no scapegoat when the money runs out and their titanic hits the iceberg.

But because DVD Jon - and every other person who pirates music and movies - has to have it his way, there will always be a war. A war where we, the consumer, will always lose because things become more and more strict or you venture more and more into illegal activity because you just want to play a copy of a song you bought on your computer in your car.

Yeah, he's a visionary. :rolleyes:

The right thing to do is to beat the system from within by playing within the system's rules. Look at EMI, hell look at Amazon. DRM-free tracks are here and they're getting better.

DVD Jon is a brilliant teen that never grew up and doesn't know how to function in a society where someone else makes the rules.

johnnyjibbs
Feb 20, 2008, 03:22 AM
There's nothing newsworthy here. It just saves the hassle of burning a CD and re-importing it (and the cost of the CD - about 2p then). I would have expected something a little more savy, with no sound loss from the guy who cracked the DVD... :rolleyes:

Not even worth Apple getting worked up about this one.

Daveoc64
Feb 20, 2008, 03:38 AM
Not even worth Apple getting worked up about this one.

They probably will though, by releasing about 200 iTunes versions a week.

rugbyboy
Feb 20, 2008, 04:53 AM
I think that by wibbling on about the quality, how its working, what it's doing you're missing what, to me anyway, is exciting about DoubleTwist.

It's the use of your media anywhere.

I have an iPod, a PSP and an Nokia N95 - I buy songs off iTunes from time to time, I buy CD's. I find the thought of having one repository of my media in one place that I can send to any device fairly compelling.

I also want to get an XBox 360 or Apple TV or something to stream stuff to my main media system at some point. If I know that it doesn't matter what device I get ad that all my media will work that's pretty darn neat-o.

milo
Feb 20, 2008, 07:44 AM
How is selling a AAC music file having "vision"?

Whether it's "vision" is a matter of semantics. But it IS damn impressive to succeed at selling music files on a large scale where everyone else failed.

There is no loss of quality with this service.

There absolutely is, they say so themselves. The file is re-encoded, which always loses some quality.

I don't really see why this is a big deal, there are already other apps that do the same thing. Now if this just stripped DRM without encoding...or if it did VIDEO...

hvfsl
Feb 20, 2008, 07:46 AM
Two things come to mind from this announcement:

1) Why not use the QTFairuse 6 engine which removes the DRM without degrading quality.

2) What I really want is a way to remove the DRM from iTunes video files, since I have a lot of them and would have thought it would be broken by now.

eastcoastsurfer
Feb 20, 2008, 08:19 AM
Well I don't think he's doing it for the money, I think he's doing it because he doesn't like the rules and so he's trying to rewrite them in a selfish and bullheaded manner.

I've never liked this guy. His whole game has been trying to break the system rather than play by rules and effect change lawfully. "I wanted a DVD decrypter so I could watch movies on Linux." OK, write one for yourself and there you go. But he couldn't keep it to himself and instead published it on the Internet. "I don't like Apple's DRM" so instead of just buying regular CDs, he cracks Apple's DRM and publishes it all over the Internet.

Here's an idea - if you don't like it, don't buy it. It's entertainment, not food. As copyright holders, it is their right to determine how it gets copied (where do you think the name comes from??).

If everyone that was actually annoyed with DRM stopped buying the DRM'ed content, then DRM would go away. But no - he has to have it his way which for some moral reason is better than the **AA having it their way. So he does an end-run around the system. Now the **AAs have ammunition. "Oh noes, they cracked our DRMs and are stealing our contents! Congress, please help us! We gives you lots of monies!" "OK movie/recording industries. We'll save you and pass laws that make such activities illegal! or at least really expensive when you get caught!"

If everyone just stood up an said "No, your content isn't worth it. It isn't worth the price; it isn't worth the restrictions; and it isn't worth the hassle - I'm not buying it and I'll just do without," the media conglomerates would have no scapegoat when the money runs out and their titanic hits the iceberg.

But because DVD Jon - and every other person who pirates music and movies - has to have it his way, there will always be a war. A war where we, the consumer, will always lose because things become more and more strict or you venture more and more into illegal activity because you just want to play a copy of a song you bought on your computer in your car.

Yeah, he's a visionary. :rolleyes:

The right thing to do is to beat the system from within by playing within the system's rules. Look at EMI, hell look at Amazon. DRM-free tracks are here and they're getting better.

DVD Jon is a brilliant teen that never grew up and doesn't know how to function in a society where someone else makes the rules.

So you hate someone that's fighting for your rights? If the *IAA had their way you would pay every time you heard or a song or saw a movie. There would be no such thing as buying a DVD or CD. We are also supposed to have a fair use with copyrighted content. I don't know about you, but I would consider fair use to be able to watch or listen to content that I have bought and own on any device that I own.

milo
Feb 20, 2008, 09:14 AM
1) Why not use the QTFairuse 6 engine which removes the DRM without degrading quality.

Is it compatible with iTunes 7.6? And is it available for download anywhere? Their site has had all download links removed due to legal action from Apple.

aerospace
Feb 20, 2008, 09:17 AM
Will this convert avi video files to work on the iphone?

I have yet to find a good free software that will do this reliably and I have several movies I'd like to move over =)

whooleytoo
Feb 20, 2008, 09:25 AM
Not the nicest UI I've ever seen, I have to say.

Still, it works.

Is there any option in the programme to switch to lossless converting? (it would be possible, if you decrypt & decompress, and losslessly re-compress).

eastcoastsurfer
Feb 20, 2008, 09:35 AM
If everyone that was actually annoyed with DRM stopped buying the DRM'ed content, then DRM would go away. But no - he has to have it his way which for some moral reason is better than the **AA having it their way. So he does an end-run around the system. Now the **AAs have ammunition. "Oh noes, they cracked our DRMs and are stealing our contents! Congress, please help us! We gives you lots of monies!" "OK movie/recording industries. We'll save you and pass laws that make such activities illegal! or at least really expensive when you get caught!"


And I wanted to reply to this part of your message on its own. Most people aren't aware of the DRM. If Apple (and others who use DRM) were up front in saying that you will have to use iPods or iTMS to play this song forever more (without resorting to a 'hack') people would think differently about buying songs with DRM on them. I have a friend who had a ipod that broke for whatever reason. She bought another brand player and now can't use the couple hundred songs she purchased from iTMS. She's an honest consumer of music and now she gets the raw end of the deal because of DRM. People who got their music for free to begin with would not have had this problem. Suffice to say she's done with DRM music and done with the iTMS store now, even though I managed to un-DRM all her music using a utility like the one mentioned in this article.

milo
Feb 20, 2008, 10:28 AM
Will this convert avi video files to work on the iphone?

I have yet to find a good free software that will do this reliably and I have several movies I'd like to move over =)

iSquint. Even iTunes should be able to do it unless it's some obscure codec.

Is there any option in the programme to switch to lossless converting? (it would be possible, if you decrypt & decompress, and losslessly re-compress).

I assume you can convert to a lossless format, but that's kind of a waste of space for content that has the sound quality of a lossy file.

123
Feb 20, 2008, 10:33 AM
DVD Jon is a brilliant teen that never grew up and doesn't know how to function in a society where someone else makes the rules.

What rules? He functions very well in Norwegian society and its rules.

stupidregister
Feb 20, 2008, 10:33 AM
Here's an idea - if you don't like it, don't buy it. It's entertainment, not food. As copyright holders, it is their right to determine how it gets copied (where do you think the name comes from??).

Here is another idea - if you don't want your material to be freely copied then don't release it in the first place.

milo
Feb 20, 2008, 10:36 AM
Here is another idea - if you don't want your material to be freely copied then don't release it in the first place.

That's a dumb attitude. Might as well say if you don't want people to break into your house, don't build a house.

whooleytoo
Feb 20, 2008, 10:40 AM
I assume you can convert to a lossless format, but that's kind of a waste of space for content that has the sound quality of a lossy file.

Well, you've two options when you're transcoding like this:

- a lossy codec, in which case the sound quality will degrade even further, but the filesize will be similar.

- a lossless codec, in which the sound quality will be the same as the original (lossy) file, but the filesize will be greater.

Given the sound quality isn't the best to start with, I'll always go for the latter option.

stupidregister
Feb 20, 2008, 11:16 AM
That's a dumb attitude.
It's not an attitude. I was merely showing that there is another idea.

Might as well say if you don't want people to break into your house, don't build a house.No, because breaking a house requires causing damage to the house. Copying bits does not require damaging the original. Bits aren't a scarce resource.

milo
Feb 20, 2008, 11:44 AM
It's not an attitude. I was merely showing that there is another idea.

No, because breaking a house requires causing damage to the house. Copying bits does not require damaging the original. Bits aren't a scarce resource.

It IS an attitude, and a completely braindead one.

netdog
Feb 20, 2008, 11:48 AM
Good for old DRM tracks, but DRM is about to go away at iTS. Perhaps this is just what Jobs needs to get the record companies to stop their bellyaching and unlock the music.

Mac21ND
Feb 20, 2008, 12:03 PM
So you hate someone that's fighting for your rights? If the *IAA had their way you would pay every time you heard or a song or saw a movie. There would be no such thing as buying a DVD or CD. We are also supposed to have a fair use with copyrighted content. I don't know about you, but I would consider fair use to be able to watch or listen to content that I have bought and own on any device that I own.

I love when people try to argue that pirating copyrighted material is a lawful "right." Honestly, you really need to revisit the concept of what an "absolute right" is. No person, in any society, has an absolute right to do anything. You don't have the right the act in certain ways. Why? Because your resulting actions hurt other people's rights. It's the whole shouting fire in a crowded theater concept that people forget.

As for the last part of your comment, you don't own the content. You don't own the rights to a song. You purchased the ability to listen to a song via a certain playback method. It's no different than saying, "Hey, I purchased a record back in the 1960's. I shouldn't have to pay for a CD of that song now, I already have it on record!" No, you have the ability to listen to that song via a vinyl record. If you would like to listen to that song with a CD player, you'll need to buy a version of that song in the necessary format. It's the same with digital files. (Sorry, it is. Megabyte's of data isn't any less tangible than a old dusty record.) If you bought a song on iTunes, you agreed to the license and any restrictions that license included. If you don't like those restrictions, acquire the song in a different way that will allow you to listen to the song the way you would like.

oldwatery
Feb 20, 2008, 12:06 PM
So you hate someone that's fighting for your rights? If the *IAA had their way you would pay every time you heard or a song or saw a movie. There would be no such thing as buying a DVD or CD. We are also supposed to have a fair use with copyrighted content. I don't know about you, but I would consider fair use to be able to watch or listen to content that I have bought and own on any device that I own.

This guy ain't fighting for my rights.
He's fighting artists rights for a fair return on their investment.
I just don't get how people think it's their "right" to do what they want with other people's property.
Hey you don't like the system...go change it or don't play in the sandbox.

If someone makes a set of keys that will get you into the bank that is charging you crazy interest rates are you going to use them too?

The fact is you can buy CD's and DVD's. And in most cases listen or watch where and when you want for as long as you want.
Pay a bit less for downloads and get a few restrictions thrown in. So where is the crime?
This guy is not helping you listen he's enabling you to share which is stealing...the end.
The guy is a rip off artist with no concern for anything but his own distorted view of how he sees life.

I have no love for the way some record co's do business but until they and the artists come up with a better way ...well it's their property and their loss if you don't want to buy. No one is forcing you to purchase these downloads.

Stealing is stealing.
But I guess our brave new society doesn't care about honesty anymore :(

milo
Feb 20, 2008, 12:34 PM
I love when people try to argue that pirating copyrighted material is a lawful "right." Honestly, you really need to revisit the concept of what an "absolute right" is. No person, in any society, has an absolute right to do anything. You don't have the right the act in certain ways. Why? Because your resulting actions hurt other people's rights. It's the whole shouting fire in a crowded theater concept that people forget.

Did you even read what you responded to? He didn't argue any of the things you just mentioned.

Piracy is bad. We all get that.

But consumers DO have fair use rights, and those generally include things like time shifting and format shifting. You can dub a CD to a cassette tape or rip it to mp3. You can digitize a vinyl LP to CD or mp3. While some people will use this software for piracy, others will use it for completely legal things like playing an iTunes track on an mp3 player.

It's no different than saying, "Hey, I purchased a record back in the 1960's. I shouldn't have to pay for a CD of that song now, I already have it on record!" No, you have the ability to listen to that song via a vinyl record. If you would like to listen to that song with a CD player, you'll need to buy a version of that song in the necessary format. It's the same with digital files. (Sorry, it is. Megabyte's of data isn't any less tangible than a old dusty record.) If you bought a song on iTunes, you agreed to the license and any restrictions that license included. If you don't like those restrictions, acquire the song in a different way that will allow you to listen to the song the way you would like.

You don't have to pay for a CD of that song now. You CAN digitize that record and burn it to CD. Or put it on an iPod or other player. Even if you agree to the license agreement, that doesn't make it illegal or immoral to convert those files to a different format, to have more flexibility in listening to songs you paid for the right to listen to.

stupidregister
Feb 20, 2008, 12:57 PM
It IS an attitude, and a completely braindead one.
It's interesting how you just resort to name calling rather than actually attempting to counter my argument. Talk about brain-dead.

milo
Feb 20, 2008, 01:01 PM
It's interesting how you just resort to name calling rather than actually attempting to counter my argument. Talk about brain-dead.

Frankly, I don't consider your "argument" worthy of dignifying with a response. Not to mention that it's obvious that you're talked yourself into the notion that there's nothing wrong with your attitude.

cowm007
Feb 20, 2008, 01:11 PM
Two things come to mind from this announcement:

1) Why not use the QTFairuse 6 engine which removes the DRM without degrading quality.

2) What I really want is a way to remove the DRM from iTunes video files, since I have a lot of them and would have thought it would be broken by now.

1. QTFairUse removes the DRM and gives you an AAC file without re-encoding (100% quality). However, many devices can't play that format anyway so at one point or another you'll have to convert them to MP3s for use on other systems. In the interest of simplicity, this software just goes straight to MP3.

2. Check out Tunebite for video DRM. I believe it's a lossy conversion, but it strips DRM nonetheless.

eastcoastsurfer
Feb 20, 2008, 01:29 PM
This guy ain't fighting for my rights.
He's fighting artists rights for a fair return on their investment.
I just don't get how people think it's their "right" to do what they want with other people's property.
Hey you don't like the system...go change it or don't play in the sandbox.

If someone makes a set of keys that will get you into the bank that is charging you crazy interest rates are you going to use them too?

The fact is you can buy CD's and DVD's. And in most cases listen or watch where and when you want for as long as you want.
Pay a bit less for downloads and get a few restrictions thrown in. So where is the crime?
This guy is not helping you listen he's enabling you to share which is stealing...the end.
The guy is a rip off artist with no concern for anything but his own distorted view of how he sees life.

I have no love for the way some record co's do business but until they and the artists come up with a better way ...well it's their property and their loss if you don't want to buy. No one is forcing you to purchase these downloads.

Stealing is stealing.
But I guess our brave new society doesn't care about honesty anymore :(

So I didn't buy the right to listen to a song? I thought that's what the record companies have been telling me for years. You don't 'own' the song, just the right to listen it. So, when I want to listen to it on my computer (or any other device) I'm now not allowed? Talk about circular logic.

And honesty? You're kidding right? People are buying songs thinking they are being honest and doing the right thing (helping artists, etc...), but then they can't play the song on anything else but their iPod. So in your world I need to buy the CD to play in my car, buy the mp3 to play on my ipod (but it twice actually b/c sometimes I listen to it on my computer), then buy the ring tone, and then pay for it anytime I happen to hear it on the radio.

eastcoastsurfer
Feb 20, 2008, 01:39 PM
I love when people try to argue that pirating copyrighted material is a lawful "right." Honestly, you really need to revisit the concept of what an "absolute right" is. No person, in any society, has an absolute right to do anything. You don't have the right the act in certain ways. Why? Because your resulting actions hurt other people's rights. It's the whole shouting fire in a crowded theater concept that people forget.


Can you explain where I said anything about pirating the music? I own a song I bought from iTMS and want it to play on my brand new Zune. You're saying if get the song to play on the Zune I'm now pirating? And we're not talking about absolute rights, but copyright law which has a little clause called 'Fair Use' in it.


As for the last part of your comment, you don't own the content. You don't own the rights to a song. You purchased the ability to listen to a song via a certain playback method. It's no different than saying, "Hey, I purchased a record back in the 1960's. I shouldn't have to pay for a CD of that song now, I already have it on record!" No, you have the ability to listen to that song via a vinyl record. If you would like to listen to that song with a CD player, you'll need to buy a version of that song in the necessary format. It's the same with digital files. (Sorry, it is. Megabyte's of data isn't any less tangible than a old dusty record.) If you bought a song on iTunes, you agreed to the license and any restrictions that license included. If you don't like those restrictions, acquire the song in a different way that will allow you to listen to the song the way you would like.

So I purchased the right to listen to a song via a certain playback method? Fine. Where are all my 'free' (10c?) replacement CDs of all the CDs I've owned over years that have been scratched and no longer play? By your logic, I "purchased the ability to listen to a song via a certain playback method." So, since I already 'own' that method why can't get I replacement CDs at cost? You can't have it both ways. Either follow your argument to its conclusion or don't make it.

The reason digital media has the record companies so irked is that they won't be able to do a mass upsell again. When going from vinyl to tape, people re-bought a lot of their music. Then again from tape to CD. Now if what you're trying to argue is that every time a new player comes out we should have to rebuy all our music again, then I don't know what else to say.

oldwatery
Feb 20, 2008, 01:52 PM
So I didn't buy the right to listen to a song? I thought that's what the record companies have been telling me for years. You don't 'own' the song, just the right to listen it. So, when I want to listen to it on my computer (or any other device) I'm now not allowed? Talk about circular logic.

And honesty? You're kidding right? People are buying songs thinking they are being honest and doing the right thing (helping artists, etc...), but then they can't play the song on anything else but their iPod. So in your world I need to buy the CD to play in my car, buy the mp3 to play on my ipod (but it twice actually b/c sometimes I listen to it on my computer), then buy the ring tone, and then pay for it anytime I happen to hear it on the radio.

That is not what I am saying.
And it is not what is happening in the real world.
I am an artist. You buy a painting from me and that is it. You own the painting.
You have no right to copy it so you can look at it in you holiday home or wherever as well as your living room.

And no you don't have to buy all those different copies of a song like you said. (and implied that I had stated)
Your iTunes song can be heard in your car, on your stereo or your computer.
What is the problem with that?
Buy the CD and listen to it wherever you want.
And as far as I'm aware over the air radio is still free!

This kid did not produce his software to aid in your rights.
He built it so people could share and give away others property.

eastcoastsurfer
Feb 20, 2008, 02:06 PM
That is not what I am saying.
And it is not what is happening in the real world.
I am an artist. You buy a painting from me and that is it. You own the painting.
You have no right to copy it so you can look at it in you holiday home or wherever as well as your living room.


The painting analogy doesn't work b/c since I own the painting I can take it anywhere I want. Hang it in any house I want to. The analogy might work if you said I purchased the painting but it can only be shown in this room of this house.

Since you brought up the 'real world' we all know no amount of DRM will stop the people who want to pirate music. All DRM does is frustrate the people who do buy music and IMHO push them to getting it from other sources. This guys tool helps remove some of the frustration from people who buy DRMed music and would like to listen to it in non-Apple approved places.


And no you don't have to buy all those different copies of a song like you said. (and implied that I had stated)
Your iTunes song can be heard in your car, on your stereo or your computer.
What is the problem with that?
Buy the CD and listen to it wherever you want.
And as far as I'm aware over the air radio is still free!

This kid did not produce his software to aid in your rights.
He built it so people could share and give away others property.

My iTMS can be heard in the car if I burn it lossy to a CD or have a special device hooking up my iPod to the car. What if I just got a new car with that MS Sync technology in it? Whoops, have to lower the quality of all my iTMS purchased music by burning to a CD and then re-ripping it or buy it all again or go find it online DRM free. I guess if I go find it DRM free I'm pirating now?

oldwatery
Feb 20, 2008, 03:29 PM
The painting analogy doesn't work b/c since I own the painting I can take it anywhere I want. Hang it in any house I want to. The analogy might work if you said I purchased the painting but it can only be shown in this room of this house.

Since you brought up the 'real world' we all know no amount of DRM will stop the people who want to pirate music. All DRM does is frustrate the people who do buy music and IMHO push them to getting it from other sources. This guys tool helps remove some of the frustration from people who buy DRMed music and would like to listen to it in non-Apple approved places.

My iTMS can be heard in the car if I burn it lossy to a CD or have a special device hooking up my iPod to the car. What if I just got a new car with that MS Sync technology in it? Whoops, have to lower the quality of all my iTMS purchased music by burning to a CD and then re-ripping it or buy it all again or go find it online DRM free. I guess if I go find it DRM free I'm pirating now?

Good debate eh!
But you are so missing my point.
I certainly did not say buying DRM free music is piracy.
The point is that you have choices.
You don't like Apple's iTunes rules buy the music somewhere else.
You can by the CD for complete portability and reproduce it to play wherever you want.
You can buy DRM free for the same usage but with less fidelity (usually) for less money.
Or you can buy DRM protected for slightly less portability for even less money.
It's your choice.
If there were no choices other than iTunes I would understand your argument.
But this about rights and you or I don't have any rights over other peoples stuff. Just as you would not want them to have rights over your property.

And BTW.....iTunes music is already lossy so what's the deal with burning it to a CD to reproduce in another lossy format? How else are you expecting to hear it in your car without an adapter or something. That is hardly the music industry's responsibility.

I do agree that in the real world the thieves will steal whatever they want. But again that is not the point.

oban14
Feb 20, 2008, 03:58 PM
That is not what I am saying.
And it is not what is happening in the real world.
I am an artist. You buy a painting from me and that is it. You own the painting.
You have no right to copy it so you can look at it in you holiday home or wherever as well as your living room.

And no you don't have to buy all those different copies of a song like you said. (and implied that I had stated)
Your iTunes song can be heard in your car, on your stereo or your computer.
What is the problem with that?
Buy the CD and listen to it wherever you want.
And as far as I'm aware over the air radio is still free!

This kid did not produce his software to aid in your rights.
He built it so people could share and give away others property.

I think you need to learn more about what fair use means before you even engage in this debate.

If I buy a painting from you, I absolutely have the right to make a copy of it. I could make 100 copies of it, and if the technology were available I'd legally be allowed to make an exact replica down to the atomic or molecular level. I could hang it in every room in my house, keep one copy in every house, and keep extra copies in the trunk of my car. That is all protected by fair use.

What I am not allowed to do is give away or sell the copies I've made without your permission.

So here are some questions for you, they are all yes or no questions, so please take 30 seconds to answer them:

1) Is it OK for me to record a song off the radio and listen to it whenever I want?
2) Is it OK for me to tivo a video off of MTV and watch it/listen to it whenever I want?
3) Is it OK for me to take the song I recorded off the radio or MTV and transfer it to my ipod?
4) How about my computer?
5) What if my computer is my tivo?

TIA.

MacBoySeattle
Feb 20, 2008, 04:15 PM
LOL Who actually buys music on iTunes anyway who would need this? If you need music in a normal non crappy Apple proprietary format AND get it for free, you just download it on Shareaza. Stupid Apple people.If Jobs can get you to pay money for what is readily available for free you must be stupid.

milo
Feb 20, 2008, 04:27 PM
But this about rights and you or I don't have any rights over other peoples stuff. Just as you would not want them to have rights over your property.

That simply isn't true. People do have some rights over copyrighted content, it's called fair use.

Copyright owners have some rights over their content. But they don't have 100% complete control, it simply isn't allowed by copyright law because that wouldn't benefit the public good.

LOL Who actually buys music on iTunes anyway who would need this? If you need music in a normal non crappy Apple proprietary format AND get it for free, you just download it on Shareaza. Stupid Apple people.If Jobs can get you to pay money for what is readily available for free you must be stupid.

You could get a CD by shoplifting it and paying nothing. Does that mean people who pay money for it are stupid?

Don't you think that some people actually realize that the people creating content make a living from people buying it? And that some people actually *want* to buy the content so the creators can get paid (and be able to keep creating content)?

oban14
Feb 20, 2008, 04:35 PM
LOL Who actually buys music on iTunes anyway who would need this? If you need music in a normal non crappy Apple proprietary format AND get it for free, you just download it on Shareaza. Stupid Apple people.If Jobs can get you to pay money for what is readily available for free you must be stupid.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. I think some music is worth paying for and other music is not worth paying for. I think downloading an album (illegally) for free, listening to it, and then deciding you don't like it/deleting it is perfectly ok from a moral perspective. But I think if you do like the music you've downloaded for free you should go buy the CD. It's the moral thing to do. I think it is sad that we've allowed laws to get passed which make copying music a stiffer crime than just going to Wal-Mart and physically stealing the CD.

I think iTMS is a rip off because they charge 10 dollars for an album of DRM-crippled, poor quality audio. I typically pay between 3 and 10 dollars for CDs that are of great quality, have no DRM, and I can rip/transfer them to any format or device I'd like.

What I don't get are the clowns around here who think it is the music industry's god given right to see an outdated business model sustained.

You have to vote with your dollars. I've never bought a song off of iTMS and I never will, but they've sold a lot of songs so someone must like the service. Different strokes.

MacBoySeattle
Feb 20, 2008, 04:36 PM
LOL aww I've received a glowing character reference. Dude welcome to the real world. Hundreds of millions of people download copyrighted music for free every day. I could give a crap about your moral judgements. A law is only a law when it can be enforced with some probability. That law can't be enforced for the vast majority of people who break it, so it means NOTHING.

oban14
Feb 20, 2008, 04:45 PM
LOL aww I've received a glowing character reference. Dude welcome to the real world. Hundreds of millions of people download copyrighted music for free every day. I could give a crap about your moral judgements. A law is only a law when it can be enforced with some probability. That law can't be enforced for the vast majority of people who break it, so it means NOTHING.

I think this attitude is much more prevalent on those 25 and under, but I also think this attitude will become the dominant opinion as time moves forward and the dinosaurs who remember buying LPs start dying off. I need to ask though: When you love a band or an album that you've downloaded, do you buy a copy? Do you think the artists should be compensated?

Personally, the artists I care about would create what they make for free. But I fanatically support the artists I care about regardless... I could care less if Britney or Eminem decide to quit working on music because not enough people were buying it.

milo
Feb 20, 2008, 05:10 PM
I think iTMS is a rip off because they charge 10 dollars for an album of DRM-crippled, poor quality audio.

For the record, iTunes has many tracks that are DRM free and at 256 AAC. While that's not lossless, it's certainly not "poor" quality.

oban14
Feb 20, 2008, 05:17 PM
For the record, iTunes has many tracks that are DRM free and at 256 AAC. While that's not lossless, it's certainly not "poor" quality.

For the record, every song and album I own is DRM free and at 1411 kbps.

I rip flac or MP3 at 320, so iTunes still has nothing to offer me. I'd pay 10 cents a song for 256 AAC files without DRM, but that's it.

milo
Feb 20, 2008, 05:26 PM
For the record, every song and album I own is DRM free and at 1411 kbps.

I rip flac or MP3 at 320, so iTunes still has nothing to offer me. I'd pay 10 cents a song for 256 AAC files without DRM, but that's it.

If you care about sound quality why are you ripping to mp3 instead of the superior AAC format? I doubt your mp3s sound any better than 256 AAC due to your choice of a worse codec.

I can totally see the point of buying CDs, but they still are often more expensive, and they don't offer the option of buying individual songs.

swagi
Feb 20, 2008, 05:32 PM
I love when people try to argue that pirating copyrighted material is a lawful "right." Honestly, you really need to revisit the concept of what an "absolute right" is. No person, in any society, has an absolute right to do anything. You don't have the right the act in certain ways. Why? Because your resulting actions hurt other people's rights. It's the whole shouting fire in a crowded theater concept that people forget.


Converting copyrighted material for my personal use is my business and will always be. O.K., Einstein, little reality check here:

Last time I checked, I could perfectly rip the 'Buena Vista Social Club'-CD I bought to iTunes. I could then balantly (in your argument) break the copyright, and use it as background music for my iPhote slideshow of Cuba.

Last time I checked, there were literally 50% of the Top100 songs containing OLD copyrighted material (e.g. Kylie Minogue's new song uses the Tainted Love guitar/bass riff in part of the songs).

Last time I checked, sampling was an acclaimed method of producing new music.

Last time I checked, nearly no Mac user declined using HandBrake, to get DVD-content on their Apple TVs, XBoxes or PS3s (me included). We bought the DVDs, but it's so cool, to keep the DVDs in the rack and just stream the content to another room! (Btw: Thx again for cracking that, Jon. Without you, this streaming appearance wouldn't be possible!)

All four examples are pirating by your definition. You maybe should get a grip. Just because we want to use our bought content more freely, we don't upload it on the web.

And NO, I AM NO PIRATE!

oban14
Feb 20, 2008, 05:33 PM
If you care about sound quality why are you ripping to mp3 instead of the superior AAC format? I doubt your mp3s sound any better than 256 AAC due to your choice of a worse codec.

I can totally see the point of buying CDs, but they still are often more expensive, and they don't offer the option of buying individual songs.

320 MP3 is superior to 256 AAC, and MP3 is a more broadly supported format. I prefer FLAC or CD sound if given the choice, however.

I don't know where you're buying your CDs. Go check out half.com or your local used CD store. It is a very rare purchase when I spend more than 10 dollars on a CD, though I still do on some very new releases.

stupidregister
Feb 20, 2008, 05:46 PM
Frankly, I don't consider your "argument" worthy of dignifying with a response. Not to mention that it's obvious that you're talked yourself into the notion that there's nothing wrong with your attitude.
In other words, you don't have a decent counter-argument.

I still don't understand your knee-jerk reaction to "my attitude". I never even said I agreed with the alternate idea that I mentioned. It was just meant to show that the original poster's idea was not the only option.

milo
Feb 20, 2008, 05:50 PM
Last time I checked, there were literally 50% of the Top100 songs containing OLD copyrighted material (e.g. Kylie Minogue's new song uses the Tainted Love guitar/bass riff in part of the songs).

Last time I checked, sampling was an acclaimed method of producing new music.

While it happens, and it is sometimes acclaimed, it usually is done these days both with permission, and with money changing hands. Using a sample without explicit permission can lead to legal problems and having to give your record profits to the guy you sampled - look at Bittersweet Symphony.

320 MP3 is superior to 256 AAC, and MP3 is a more broadly supported format. I prefer FLAC or CD sound if given the choice, however.

I still don't get why you're using mp3 if you care about quality. To be honest, I bet you couldn't hear the difference between the two (or probably between lossless either) in a blind listening comparison.

And it's funny to hear you insisting that people should buy the CD so the artist gets paid...but you buy many CDs used. You do realize that the artist makes nothing when you buy a used CD, right?


And stupidregister, I'm done with you. Don't even bother.

stupidregister
Feb 20, 2008, 05:54 PM
And stupidregister, I'm done with you. Don't even bother.
Cool, I guess you admit that you were wrong. That is fine with me.

milo
Feb 20, 2008, 06:04 PM
Cool, I guess you admit that you were wrong. That is fine with me.

Whatever helps your self esteem, cowboy.
:)

Can
Feb 20, 2008, 06:14 PM
Because this discussion have evolved from "a new sweet software platform" to a copyright law discussion I would like to recommend the following clip for continuing the debate:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/187 -> Larry Lessig: How creativity is being strangled by the law

APPLENEWBIE
Feb 20, 2008, 06:20 PM
Wow, what an interesting thread! oh, wait a minute... gotta get the door...

"Hi. I am from Apple's legal department. We understand that you have been reading about breaking our DRM. You wouldn't be doing that, would you? Because, that would be bad. Really bad."

(Kicks computer power cord out of wall)

:D

stupidregister
Feb 20, 2008, 06:29 PM
Whatever helps your self esteem, cowboy.
:)
Thanks, cowgirl.

oban14
Feb 20, 2008, 06:48 PM
While it happens, and it is sometimes acclaimed, it usually is done these days both with permission, and with money changing hands. Using a sample without explicit permission can lead to legal problems and having to give your record profits to the guy you sampled - look at Bittersweet Symphony.



I still don't get why you're using mp3 if you care about quality. To be honest, I bet you couldn't hear the difference between the two (or probably between lossless either) in a blind listening comparison.

And it's funny to hear you insisting that people should buy the CD so the artist gets paid...but you buy many CDs used. You do realize that the artist makes nothing when you buy a used CD, right?


First of all, your assumption that the artist receives nothing when I buy a used CD shows a blatant ignorance when it comes to economics. No, they won't get the same cheque from their record company, but I am removing a used copy from circulation, meaning the next person who goes looking for the album will have to buy a new copy. Your assumption is the same as saying that buying chicken in the supermarket isn't really killing a chicken, because it's already dead.

I think buying CDs from a major label is one of the worst ways to support the artists. I try to go to shows, buy merchandise, or buy albums directly from the artists wherever possible. The sooner the recording companies go under (or more likely, simply become quid pro quo marketing companies) the better.

As for listening tests, you might be right. But like I said, I use MP3 over AAC because the bit rate is higher and it's more widely supported. Pick any random device out there, odds are greater that it'll support MP3s instead of AAC files.

cgc
Feb 20, 2008, 06:53 PM
It bugs me the media reports so much on this wanker...he's a criminal, don't glamorize him.

Wiggin
Feb 20, 2008, 07:00 PM
That simply isn't true. People do have some rights over copyrighted content, it's called fair use.

I think there is something that is left out of these arguments...er, discussions. There is one significant legal difference between buying music on a CD and purchasing via iTunes (and I assume other legal download services) that people conveniently forget. None of my CDs came with a legal agreement or explicit statement of how I would or would not use the CD. There are implicit understandings based on copyright laws and fair use that govern what I do with the CD. And you are all basing your arguments on that model.

In contrast, your iTunes purchases do come with a legal agreement. You agreed to it when you installed iTunes, and you confirm your agreement with every iTunes update you install, and you agreed to it when you created you iTunes account. Most of you probably just clicked OK and proceeded to use iTunes without actually reading the document. But it is a legal document, and you agreed to it. And like any legal agreement, you can in fact agree to give up certain rights. It's very similar to software license agreements that state you can only the software on a certain number of computers, etc, etc. The iTunes agreement has additional terms outlining how you can use iTunes purchases. The latest version has terms for your use of movie rentals. Here's one particular line that you agreed to:

"Your use of any Products purchased or rented (as applicable) from the iTunes Store is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the Terms of Service, including, without limitation, the Usage Rules set forth therein." [my emphasis on "Usage Rules"]

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

Fair use is still a powerful legal argument (I hesitate to call it a "right"), but like it or not your acceptance of the iTunes service agreement will limit, to some degree, what you can do under fair use.

oban14
Feb 20, 2008, 07:19 PM
It bugs me the media reports so much on this wanker...he's a criminal, don't glamorize him.

I think he's a hero. Of course, a lot of people thought Martin Luther King and Ghandi were criminals at one point.

cgc
Feb 20, 2008, 08:02 PM
I think he's a hero. Of course, a lot of people thought Martin Luther King and Ghandi were criminals at one point.

...while others thought Davis Koresh was the final prophet. I don't think we should intermix what is legal with what is right. I'm all for DRM-free lossless music, but this isn't the (ethical) way to do it.

123
Feb 20, 2008, 08:11 PM
But like I said, I use MP3 over AAC because the bit rate is higher
Higher bit rate doesn't mean higher quality.

I don't think we should intermix what is legal with what is right.

Then don't do it. He won the case.

w00master
Feb 20, 2008, 10:55 PM
I think there is something that is left out of these arguments...er, discussions. There is one significant legal difference between buying music on a CD and purchasing via iTunes (and I assume other legal download services) that people conveniently forget. None of my CDs came with a legal agreement or explicit statement of how I would or would not use the CD. There are implicit understandings based on copyright laws and fair use that govern what I do with the CD. And you are all basing your arguments on that model.

In contrast, your iTunes purchases do come with a legal agreement. You agreed to it when you installed iTunes, and you confirm your agreement with every iTunes update you install, and you agreed to it when you created you iTunes account. Most of you probably just clicked OK and proceeded to use iTunes without actually reading the document. But it is a legal document, and you agreed to it. And like any legal agreement, you can in fact agree to give up certain rights. It's very similar to software license agreements that state you can only the software on a certain number of computers, etc, etc. The iTunes agreement has additional terms outlining how you can use iTunes purchases. The latest version has terms for your use of movie rentals. Here's one particular line that you agreed to:

Fair use is still a powerful legal argument (I hesitate to call it a "right"), but like it or not your acceptance of the iTunes service agreement will limit, to some degree, what you can do under fair use.

Which is why these "legal agreements" are inherently wrong.

The general trend is to digital downloads and away from physical media. What these "legal" agreements ultimately do is attempt to rid of any "fair use" possibilities. Imagine a world that has gone entirely to digital downloads, and a music student is doing a paper, presentation, etc. on rock music. If this person only has an iTunes DRM'd song, shouldn't he/she be able to use the song, edit it for a presentation/video, and fairly cite that piece in this student work? The EULAs would say no. I say, fair use is fair use. This student *should* be able to do this.

w00master

psxndc
Feb 21, 2008, 12:04 AM
So you hate someone that's fighting for your rights? If the *IAA had their way you would pay every time you heard or a song or saw a movie. There would be no such thing as buying a DVD or CD. We are also supposed to have a fair use with copyrighted content. I don't know about you, but I would consider fair use to be able to watch or listen to content that I have bought and own on any device that I own.

It's not a "right" he's fighting for. You have no "right" to be entertained. If the RIAA had their way, fine. Then I wouldn't listen to their music or watch the MPAAs DVDs. I probably be a lot more productive with my life.

psxndc
Feb 21, 2008, 12:06 AM
Here is another idea - if you don't want your material to be freely copied then don't release it in the first place.

That's the whole POINT of copyright - to give the owner of the copyright control over how their music is copied and distributed. But he's taking that right and saying "no, I think my way is right, so I don't care what you're rights are."

psxndc
Feb 21, 2008, 12:21 AM
I think he's a hero. Of course, a lot of people thought Martin Luther King and Ghandi were criminals at one point.

Wow. This is like the anti-Nazi Internet Principle. When someone arguably "bad" is analogized to a pretty-universally-accepted-as-amazing person, the argument is over.

My whole point is that you agreed to certain terms when you bought the song through iTunes. Now people are unilaterally changing those terms. If Apple did it and said you can no longer listen to a song more than 100 times, and it applies to all the tracks you bought before, people would (understandably and reasonably) flip out.

This guy is basically saying "ignore the agreements you made - I'll provide you a work around." Forget copyright etc for a minute - he's basically saying it's ok to break your word. And I'm not talking about pirating or sharing with friends. If Apple says it will sell you an AAC that you can't play on other devices and you agree, THAT'S THE DEAL YOU MADE. To the poster above that says "people don't know" wel, duh, READ. It's all there when you click "ok." Can't be bothered to read what you're agreeing to? Don't come crying to me.

Is going back on what you've agreed to really what people are ok with? I'm not. If you don't like the deal, don't agree.

oban14
Feb 21, 2008, 12:21 AM
Then don't do it. He won the case.

Nice to see someone else who understands where I'm coming from! ;):D

oban14
Feb 21, 2008, 12:29 AM
Wow. This is like the anti-Nazi Internet Principle. When someone arguably "bad" is analogized to a pretty-universally-accepted-as-amazing person, the argument is over.

My whole point is that you agreed to certain terms when you bought the song through iTunes. Now people are unilaterally changing those terms. If Apple did it and said you can no longer listen to a song more than 100 times, and it applies to all the tracks you bought before, people would (understandably and reasonably) flip out.


;) I see you know my work, and are a student of the game! Well parried, my rapier witted friend!


This guy is basically saying "ignore the agreements you made - I'll provide you a work around." Forget copyright etc for a minute - he's basically saying it's ok to break your word. And I'm not talking about pirating or sharing with friends. If Apple says it will sell you an AAC that you can't play on other devices and you agree, THAT'S THE DEAL YOU MADE. To the poster above that says "people don't know" wel, duh, READ. It's all there when you click "ok." Can't be bothered to read what you're agreeing to? Don't come crying to me.

Is going back on what you've agreed to really what people are ok with? I'm not. If you don't like the deal, don't agree.

Because EULAs are completely unenforcable legally and immoral by anyone's reasonable definition. Just as I can't agree to let someone murder me or sell myself into slavery, we are allowed certain inalienable rights for fair use. EULAs often violate the legal and moral principles that allow these rights, and truthfully, they should all be thrown in a bonfire.

But I guess you can consider me a step ahead - I won't use iTMS due to their EULA, their DRM, and their general restrictions. I understand a lot of people use it, but I'm not one of them. If someone wants to strip DRM off of an iTunes song so they can copy it to their PS3, I say god bless 'em, regardless of what sort of legalese BS they skipped through while installing iTunes.

Honestly, does anyone here actually read these things? Who has the time?

Wiggin
Feb 21, 2008, 01:22 AM
Imagine a world that has gone entirely to digital downloads, and a music student is doing a paper, presentation, etc. on rock music. If this person only has an iTunes DRM'd song, shouldn't he/she be able to use the song, edit it for a presentation/video, and fairly cite that piece in this student work? The EULAs would say no. I say, fair use is fair use. This student *should* be able to do this.

w00master

I agree 100%, in principle.

However, then we get to practical application. All you need to do is create a DRM system that both allows for fair use AND protects the interests of the copyright holder. In the past, the protection was provided by the fact that making copies was difficult (ie, records before cassette tapes), time consuming (copying a book), expensive (buying blank media), or degraded the quality of the work (copying CDs to cassette).

Now with fast computers and the internet, all of those barriers protecting the work have been knocked down. So now we have DRM as the new barrier. I really don't get why people are complaining. This new barrier is just as easily defeated as those old ones, if you were willing to invest the time, money, or effort and are willing to accept a degradation in quality. Nowhere in principle of fair use does it say that it has to be cheap or easy to make copies of protected work.

I don't ever recall people complaining in the 80's that the price of blank cassettes were a barrier to fair use, or that their fair use rights have been violated by the fact that it's a pain in the arse to photocopy a book.

No, the problem today is that people are lazy with a sense of entitlement. I think if I had to pay for expensive blank cassette tapes to make copies of my CDs to play in my Walkman and in the car, you can pony up the 10 cents for a blank CD to burn your iTunes music and re-rip it as MP3.

And yes, in those days when we were making cassettes of our CDs, we had to do it while walking up hill both ways through 5-foot snow drifts. :D

PS: Just so you know, I don't like DRM either; and I hope it eventually goes away. But until someone comes up with a better way to allow fair use while providing an appropriate barrier to protect the work, it's a necessary evil.

Wiggin
Feb 21, 2008, 01:56 AM
;)
Because EULAs are completely unenforcable legally and immoral by anyone's reasonable definition. Just as I can't agree to let someone murder me or sell myself into slavery, we are allowed certain inalienable rights for fair use. EULAs often violate the legal and moral principles that allow these rights, and truthfully, they should all be thrown in a bonfire.

....

Honestly, does anyone here actually read these things? Who has the time?

I'm sorry, please don't take this as a personal attack or insult, but I can't help but wonder how long you've been around?

Are you seriously comparing fair use to murder and slavery? Do you really think fair use is a moral issue? Is it truly your stance the fair use is an inalienable right?

I'm really struggling to understand how/why you measure the importance of fair use with such extreme examples and lofty standards.

As to your last statement, failure to read a legal document you agreed to is not a defense in a court of law. I certainly hope when you buy a car or house, rent an apartment, sign a job contract, purchase an insurance policy, join a gym, or any of the hundreds of other documents you agree to in everyday life that you actually read them. Otherwise, sooner or later, you are going to get burned. And not reading the contract isn't going to help you.

BTW, I don't read EULAs either and have only recently read a few of the sections of the iTunes agreement. But I was very familiar with the terms associated with purchasing iTunes content before I purchased any. it's kind of hard to miss it. And if it turns out there's something I don't agree with...well, that my own dang fault for not reading the agreement.

Can
Feb 21, 2008, 06:43 AM
My whole point is that you agreed to certain terms when you bought the song through iTunes. Now people are unilaterally changing those terms.

Get your facts straight mister. In Norway the Norwegian "forbrukerrådet" (The Norwegian consumer council) won a case against apple so they had to change their Norwegian terms of use. The changes were many and the result differ greatly from the deal Americans and others have. We actually now have the right to remove the DRM to make our songs playable on other devices, and this software helps us do that, and many other things 100% legally.

eastcoastsurfer
Feb 21, 2008, 07:21 AM
It's not a "right" he's fighting for. You have no "right" to be entertained. If the RIAA had their way, fine. Then I wouldn't listen to their music or watch the MPAAs DVDs. I probably be a lot more productive with my life.

I do have a right to 'fair use' of copyrighted content per copyright law. Now if you want to debate what constitutes 'fair use' that's fine.

psxndc
Feb 21, 2008, 07:44 AM
Get your facts straight mister. In Norway the Norwegian "forbrukerrådet" (The Norwegian consumer council) won a case against apple so they had to change their Norwegian terms of use. The changes were many and the result differ greatly from the deal Americans and others have. We actually now have the right to remove the DRM to make our songs playable on other devices, and this software helps us do that, and many other things 100% legally.

That's great! Bully for Norway. If he is facilitating people in Norway exercising their fair use rights, good for everyone...in Norway. But that doesn't change the "facts" over here in the US, where people will use the software to violate US Agreements. Does he distinguish on his site which country you're in? If he doesn't, then he's - let's admit - knowingly promoting this.

psxndc
Feb 21, 2008, 07:59 AM
Because EULAs are completely unenforcable legally and immoral by anyone's reasonable definition.

Please see ProCD v. Zeidenberg (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=961139)

Also see Hill v. Gateway (http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/jan97/96-3294.html).

Done reading? Now let's continue the conversation. EULAs are enforceable, and should be. If you don't like them, either don't use the product or bring it up with your legislature.

If you don't use iTMS, good for you. I don't either. I was fine with them until I wanted to use a song I bought as a ringtone. I'm not going to pay an additional fee for it. So I didn't AND I didn't just go and use it anyway. I took it as an annoying lesson in how the iTMS works. So now I use Amazon's mp3 store for DRM-less tracks. You say god bless the people that want to strip off the DRM of their iTMS tracks, but why don't you? You apparently think it's ok to do it, so are you saying you personally don't want to support a system you don't agree with?? Wow. It kinda sounds like.... my point.

Honestly, does anyone here actually read these things? Who has the time?

I read them (once I read the Pro CD case), and believe me I have plenty of better things to do. Not reading them is just laziness. It takes probably 10 minutes tops to read most EULAs. Spend 10 minutes less using the software and actually understand what you're agreeing to. Are are you against being an informed consumer?

whooleytoo
Feb 21, 2008, 08:08 AM
Is removing the DRM from iTunes music even illegal? Didn't Steve Jobs even previously say you could burn a CD then rip it? If so, what's the difference between doing that, and using this software.

Personally, I'll use this software so that I can play the music I've bought in the device of my choosing (and I'll rip my DVDs and (in particular) my HD-DVDs too so that I can continue to watch the movies I've bought.)

Is it illegal to do so? I've no idea, I guess I'll find out. Is it immoral?

No. Period.*

(just for melodramatic effect. couldn't resist..)

oban14
Feb 21, 2008, 10:01 AM
PS: Just so you know, I don't like DRM either; and I hope it eventually goes away. But until someone comes up with a better way to allow fair use while providing an appropriate barrier to protect the work, it's a necessary evil.

1) DRM will always be circumvented.
2) Because DRM will always be circumvented, it only harms honest consumers.
3) Software/music pirates will always circumvent the DRM and get what they're after for free.

So how/why is it a necessary evil? The genie is out of the bottle. Artists will never have control over copyright the way they did in the past. People need to get used to this fact and find other ways to get paid.

SiliconAddict
Feb 21, 2008, 10:57 AM
Now if only there was a way of getting third party portable media players to link to iTunes on a Mac. :rolleyes: I've spent the last 2 days trying to find a way to get a Creative device to sync with iTunes....nothing. I'm liking Creative's interface on their PMP...much more....I guess the phrase would be visually pleasing to the iPod Classic. The Touch is not even an option with its neutered 32GB of storage.

SiliconAddict
Feb 21, 2008, 12:54 PM
I've been reading this thread and yah know. Everyone has a point but no one is 100% right and no one is 100% wrong. The simple, and it is very simple, fact is that if the RIAA hadn't been clinging to old ways for so long P2P would have been a nonissue.
It took something like 7-10 years for them to grasp the concept of single track purchases, and even then they kept looking for greater then .99 price structures. It took another 2 years ontop of that to grasp the concept of non DRM which for them has always been the silver bullet for piracy, even though its contrary to everything any _informed_ consumer would ever want.

During that time consumers said F off and turned to bittorrent, Napster, et al P2P file sharing sites to rebel against the RIAA. Many of the people I know don't download because they want it free. They download because of the RIAA and the perception, right or wrong I'm not going to commont on, that they get the lions share of the profit while fracking over the artist.
They have successfully established a "personality" that they are scum, that they are greedy, that they will sue a dead grandmother, and will use false statistics to try and get legislation passed to do their bidding. In short much of this fiasco responsibility falls squarely in the lap of the RIAA.
Something that I think the MPAA is now starting to face in mass. Bittorrent is starting to really slap the MPAA in the face now that compression has gotten to the point where a quality movie can be downloaded for about 300-500MB. That, I believe, is why a site like www.hulu.com was created. But unless they act fast it won't be enough. They NEED to show the general public that they aren't [bleep]hats. Because that impression is forming fast with the price of theatre tickets continuing to climb. It will only get worse. But as for the RIAA. They are pretty much screwed. Perceptions like this stick like a plasma weld and every time they sue someone else it just re enforces it and people hate them just a little bit, or a lotta bit more.

Wiggin
Feb 21, 2008, 09:26 PM
1) DRM will always be circumvented.
2) Because DRM will always be circumvented, it only harms honest consumers.
3) Software/music pirates will always circumvent the DRM and get what they're after for free.

So how/why is it a necessary evil? The genie is out of the bottle. Artists will never have control over copyright the way they did in the past. People need to get used to this fact and find other ways to get paid.

I'll give you #1 and #3, but you only get one point for them because they are duplicates. There will always be a way to get around the barrier of DRM if you are determined enough.

But I'd like to see statistics for #2. Go back to CDs. What percentage of non-fair use copies of CD were made by "pirates" (ie, people mass producing copies to sell for profit) vs by people casually making copies and giving them to friends? I don't know, wouldn't even hazard a guess. But I suspect you don't know either. Therefore, #2 is pure speculation and theory.

We can even revisit my earlier analogy of making copies of books. I said the "barrier" that helped protect the work was that making the copy was difficult. But only the first copy. Once you've made a photocopy, it's easy enough to make additional copies. So the mass production pirates could still do it if they wanted. The fact that making only one copy was difficult would, to use your words, "only harms honest consumers." And yet, I still don't see everyone complaining that it's too hard to make a copy of a book! Why not? What is so special about music and the internet that we all of a sudden think we have rights and entitlements that we didn't have before, that we didn't seem to be all that concerned about before?

The other reason it's a necessary evil, for now, is because whether you like it or not, some copyright holders are insisting on having it. So without it, we wouldn't have the iTunes/iPod ecosystem we have today.

oban14
Feb 21, 2008, 10:58 PM
I'll give you #1 and #3, but you only get one point for them because they are duplicates. There will always be a way to get around the barrier of DRM if you are determined enough.

But I'd like to see statistics for #2. Go back to CDs. What percentage of non-fair use copies of CD were made by "pirates" (ie, people mass producing copies to sell for profit) vs by people casually making copies and giving them to friends? I don't know, wouldn't even hazard a guess. But I suspect you don't know either. Therefore, #2 is pure speculation and theory.

We can even revisit my earlier analogy of making copies of books. I said the "barrier" that helped protect the work was that making the copy was difficult. But only the first copy. Once you've made a photocopy, it's easy enough to make additional copies. So the mass production pirates could still do it if they wanted. The fact that making only one copy was difficult would, to use your words, "only harms honest consumers." And yet, I still don't see everyone complaining that it's too hard to make a copy of a book! Why not? What is so special about music and the internet that we all of a sudden think we have rights and entitlements that we didn't have before, that we didn't seem to be all that concerned about before?

The other reason it's a necessary evil, for now, is because whether you like it or not, some copyright holders are insisting on having it. So without it, we wouldn't have the iTunes/iPod ecosystem we have today.

First of all, 1, 2 and 3 are more of a chain of events/logic than three distinct points. But I digress.

Books are successful for a few reasons. You ever try to print out an entire book? It isn't cheap. Making copies? Same thing. Pirate an e-book? Who wants to spend 20 hours reading off a screen?

And for the record, I have every right to make copies of any book I own for my own personal use.

As for pirating books and copying CDs, it certainly happens. It's more popular in Asian countries but it happens at your local swap meet and anywhere else. Some of these products (particularly copies of Microsoft and Adobe software) look so authentic that you can barely tell they're copies. They'll literally use a whole factory for the fabrication process... sometimes the very same factory contracted to make the original product!

These are the true copyright infringers. As far as your comments about the iTMS eco system not existing without DRM, it doesn't matter. I don't think you or the RIAA is fully aware of how little say they have in the issue. They can provide DRM crap, and people will pirate. They can provide non-DRM songs, and people will pirate. They can provide absolutely nothing, and people will pirate.

The only way you will ever slow down copyright infringement is by giving it the death penalty. Good luck with that.

ok13
Feb 22, 2008, 07:29 AM
you can just burn those to a cd, then rip them back

NightStorm
Feb 22, 2008, 08:00 AM
I said this in another thread, but I'll say it here again. I don't understand what is so revolutionary about this product. All it does is exploit the analog hole (oh and play it faster so it doesn't take as long). The only reason this is getting any press is because "DVD Jon" is involved; I'm so glad he decided to cash in on his "hacking" and "going against the man" persona.

tehinternets
Feb 25, 2008, 12:06 PM
For the record, every song and album I own is DRM free and at 1411 kbps.

I rip flac or MP3 at 320, so iTunes still has nothing to offer me. I'd pay 10 cents a song for 256 AAC files without DRM, but that's it.

Hell, that's about what you pay for DRM-less audio files from allofmp3/mp3sparks, and they let you pick whatever codec or lossless format you want!

tehinternets
Feb 25, 2008, 12:07 PM
I said this in another thread, but I'll say it here again. I don't understand what is so revolutionary about this product. All it does is exploit the analog hole (oh and play it faster so it doesn't take as long). The only reason this is getting any press is because "DVD Jon" is involved; I'm so glad he decided to cash in on his "hacking" and "going against the man" persona.

False.

The reason it gets any press is because you don't have to sit at your computer with a copy of iTunes like an idiot copying crap to a CD, then re-importing it all over and over again.

With his software it is so simple even an idiot can do it, without babysitting every step of the process.

Have you even seen the software?