Apple vs. Anti-DRM

[MacRumors]

Apple appears to have taken an active technological stance against the recent emergence of iTunes Digital Rights Stripping applications. Two such applications have been able to effectively strip the Digital Rights Management from Protected iTunes Songs to allow them to play on unauthorized machines and MP3 players.

While Apple's legal team has been effective in shutting down the sites that host some of these applications, Apple's most recent iTunes revision (4.5) appears to further thwart these existing applications.

Appleinsider notes (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=438) error messages when attempting to de-protect the latest files with Fairplay.

[iPC]

Apple appears to have taken an active technological stance against the recent emergence of iTunes Digital Rights Stripping applications. Two such applications have been able to effectively strip the Digital Rights Management from Protected iTunes Songs to allow them to play on unauthorized machines and MP3 players.

While Apple's legal team has been effective in shutting down the sites that host some of these applications, Apple's most recent iTunes revision (4.5) appears to furthur thwart these existing applications.

Appleinsider notes (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=438) error messages when attempting to de-protect the latest files with Fairplay.
Nothing a quick re-write of a very basic app (one was ~230 lines of code) can't fix.

[sethypoo]

This is good news to me.

I think that Apple's DRM is very fair, and that these stripping applications need to go.

[3-22]

Apple appears to have taken an active technological stance against the recent emergence of iTunes Digital Rights Stripping applications. Two such applications have been able to effectively strip the Digital Rights Management from Protected iTunes Songs to allow them to play on unauthorized machines and MP3 players.

While Apple's legal team has been effective in shutting down the sites that host some of these applications, Apple's most recent iTunes revision (4.5) appears to furthur thwart these existing applications.

Appleinsider notes (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=438) error messages when attempting to de-protect the latest files with Fairplay.

I was figuring 4.5 would include some anti-drm stuff. I see that as probably the trend for all future versions constant updates to thwart the latest anti-drm utilities.

I'm sure people will complain about this here, but as I see it... It's their product and when you sign up you're agreeing to their terms. If you don't like it keep buying CDs, use another service, or do illegal downloads. Apple's DRM is the best as far as I'm concerned. Sure unlimited use would be great but not gonna happen, anytime soon anyway.

DRM rant in 3...2...1....

[Frisco]

At least this shows to the Record Labels that Apple is taking an active approach to prevent piracy. If Apple did nothing the Labels might lose confidence in Apple DRM.

I for one have never run into any issues or limitations using my protected audio files. I don't even give it a second thought that they are protected. If I didn't know any better I would have thought they were just regular MP3s.

Apple's DRM is very fair--I hate when people try to ruin it!

[LEgregius]

I don't usually run into the DRM problems, and I'm glad Apple gives us the ability to buy and download music. But I, for one, like the idea of stripping out the DRM without losing quality because, in theory, Apple could simple shut down the service one day and make all of the music I purchased useless once I buy a new computer. That's the same kind of thing as the problem of a DVD getting damaged - without the ability to copy the DVD, I'm out of luck and have to buy it again.

I do think DRM in technically evil, but I also think that consumers will drive keeping DRM from being too restrictive. People won't buy music they can't listen to in the manner they wish.

It would be nice if Apple put in their contract that, should they shutdown the service, we will be given a program to strip out the DRM. That would only be fair.

[SpY2K]

I applaud Apple for thier quick resolutions to disabling these stripping applications. Finally, the world of internet music is flourishing legally and there are still efforts to tarnish this movement. Keep up the battle Apple, way to stop these anti-DRM folks dead in thier tracks... :cool:

[arn]

At least this shows to the Record Labels that Apple is taking an active approach to prevent piracy. If Apple did nothing the Labels might lose confidence in Apple DRM.

I for one have never run into any issues or limitations using my protected audio files. I don't even give it a second thought that they are protected. If I didn't know any better I would have thought they were just regular MP3s.
!

Yep... this is a must-do for Apple. Apple needs to keep appearances of protecting the DRM - otherwise, the labels aren't going to like it.

arn

[sinisterdesign]

i just don't want these a$$hats that are trying to get around Apple's DRM to start making the people who are on the fence about releasing their music to iTMS nervous.

are there ALWAYS going to be people trying to find a way to steal/thwart/hack their way around stuff like this? of course. is it more secure than me being able to burn a hundred copies of a CD that i own? of course.

i love iTMS & i'm hoping more & more artists/execs decide to open their libraries up and dump everything they have online. we don't need people pointing to Fairplay & saying, "see? i told you it's not secure, we'll keep selling our music on CDs..."

[Pants]

broken already...

"iTunes 4.5: iTunes 4.5 uses a new authentication algorithm. However, not even 24 hours after I downloaded it, and that includes a little sleep and lots of uni time, I've broken it. Hah. Anyhow, libopendaap 0.2.0 and tunesbrowser 0.1.4 are now available."

go find the link yourselves...

[Awimoway]

I think it's a good model for Apple: Anyone who buys DRM-governed music from iTMS has an incentive to keep iTunes updated if they ever want to make additional purchases from the store. Free music every week and the inability to share music with older versions of iTunes increase that incentive. Apple simply has to implement counter-measures to DRM-stripping software in every new release. The crackers never get very far, and the music labels are happy.

[robotrenegade]

These geeks need to go. Get them Apple!

[azdude]

Arn:

It's worth noting that iTunes 4.5 ALSO disabled rendezvous-scooping programs like MyTunes (PC), Leechster (Mac) and GetTunes (Mac). None of them work anymore.

iPodlounge posted a blurb on it, and I've tested all three.

I can see why they'd do it (College campus rendezvous + MyTunes = Piracy), but it was a great tool within my own home. :( :rolleyes:

[travishill]

broken already...
"iTunes 4.5: iTunes 4.5 uses a new authentication algorithm. However, not even 24 hours after I downloaded it, and that includes a little sleep and lots of uni time, I've broken it. Hah. Anyhow, libopendaap 0.2.0 and tunesbrowser 0.1.4 are now available."


That has nothing to do with the DRM on the new M4P files you purchase. That is just the algorithm for sharing files over a network.

[mixylplik3]

I love iTMS and use it regularly. I also am glad to see Apple crack down on these things. That being said, I also like being able to free my puchased music to do what I please with it if the situation calls for it. I don't trade MP3s with friends nor do I share them on P2P networks. My music is mine. I rip from streams all the time and buy from iTMS. I do what I please with my music.

There is always a way around things. I support Apple but also support doing what I want with my music.

[kingtj]

I totally understand Apple's position on this. (They can't afford to risk losing their ability to offer big-label music via their music store, simply because the recording industry decides iTunes is inherently insecure.)

At the same time, though, the long-term fight should be aimed at getting the recording industry to understand that DRM is not needed, and simply detracts from the value a paying consumer gets for his/her dollar.

Apple has done all of us a service, by raising the bar of what online music sales could be. They managed to take a reluctant recording industry and negotiate with them so they'd at least allow the songs to be sold online and downloaded. But now that they've shown the model can be successful and people really will pay for their music - it's up to the consumers to take the next step.

When I buy a song or album online, I shouldn't have to worry about it not playing on my PC at work, just becase I already "authorized" it for 2 desktops and my laptop I own at home. I shouldn't have to jump through hoops if I forget to "deauthorize" a machine before I sell it to someone else. This is, ultimately, a bunch of nonsense. When I buy the same music on CD from a retail outlet, I don't run into some limit on how many different CD players I can play it in!


I applaud Apple for thier quick resolutions to disabling these stripping applications. Finally, the world of internet music is flourishing legally and there are still efforts to tarnish this movement. Keep up the battle Apple, way to stop these anti-DRM folks dead in thier tracks... :cool:

[Azmordean]

This is good news to me.

I think that Apple's DRM is very fair, and that these stripping applications need to go.

I agree the DRM is fair, especially with the 5 computer allowance. That should cover most people on both home and work machines. That said, there are still two areas Apple needs to address to truly make FairPlay DRM fair:

1) Linux compatability -- as it is, it is still not possible to play ITMS files on a Linux machines. I do not use linux personally, but I know many people for whom this is a major turn off. There is no reason apple shouldn't remedy this - you'd think with their commitment to open source, they'd release a version of iTunes for Linux. Alternatively, Apple could simply release some kind of plugin for XMMS that allows it to decode fairplay files.

2) MP3 player support - this is another achilles heal for apple. They need to either start licensing fairplay so other non-iPod players can support ITMS files OR make a sub-$100 player themselves (talking the $99 price range). I am a perfect example of this - I lift weights and run regularly and the ONLY thing I want an MP3 player for is for these activities. I will not use it at all otherwise. Therefore, something like a 64mb flash player would serve my needs just fine. I simply cannot justify spending 250 bucks on an ipod mini for this use right now. If apple had a sub-100 dollar player for people like me I'd buy it in an instant.

[ktb53]

I'm glad that apple is agressively going after these people who are in effect stealing. If you don't like apple's DRM then you shouldn't purchase songs on iTunes. I find it hard to believe that anyone building these applications is a supporter of Apple. If these stripping applications become widely used it could seriously hurt Apple's ability to stay the industry leader in this area and continue to grow and build itunes.

[Azmordean]

I don't usually run into the DRM problems, and I'm glad Apple gives us the ability to buy and download music. But I, for one, like the idea of stripping out the DRM without losing quality because, in theory, Apple could simple shut down the service one day and make all of the music I purchased useless once I buy a new computer. That's the same kind of thing as the problem of a DVD getting damaged - without the ability to copy the DVD, I'm out of luck and have to buy it again.

I do think DRM in technically evil, but I also think that consumers will drive keeping DRM from being too restrictive. People won't buy music they can't listen to in the manner they wish.

It would be nice if Apple put in their contract that, should they shutdown the service, we will be given a program to strip out the DRM. That would only be fair.

I wouldn't worry about this too much -- it seems to me, if they ever shut it down, the DRM will be cracked real quick. And at that point, no one would care too much.

[Vonnie]

<i>broken already...

"iTunes 4.5: iTunes 4.5 uses a new authentication algorithm. However, not even 24 hours after I downloaded it, and that includes a little sleep and lots of uni time, I've broken it. Hah. Anyhow, libopendaap 0.2.0 and tunesbrowser 0.1.4 are now available."

go find the link yourselves...</i>

That blurb has nothing to do with the DRM attached to bought files, but with the rendez-vous sharing.

Personally, I hope either playfair cracks the new drm soon, or Apple releases their DRM system to third-party developers. What Apple is doing, is basically locking in their customers to itunes and ipod. This is exactly the same thing that Microsoft did with Word. We don't need yet another monopoly-abusing company.

[Windowlicker]

what's the point in hacking the apple drm anyway? I think it's fair enough already..

[fpnc]

You can forget about the debate concerning DRM-breaking software, Apple has the right (and means) to interfer with such software. HOWEVER, it appears that the latest iTunes update also breaks software that was not violating the DRM. Note the following item:

I am sorry to report that it appears that the latest update to Apple's iTunes (v4.5) has affirmed one of the common criticisms directed towards the use of digital rights management (DRM). Specifically, the latest iTunes update has broken what was previously an Apple supported and I believe legal use of Apple's DRM-protected songs. After updating to the latest iTunes I can no longer create functional audio CDs from my iTunes purchases when using Roxio's Toast Titanium CD/DVD burning software. It is, however, still possible to burn music CDs using the iTunes Player, but the latest version of Toast (v6.0.5 release only one week ago on Apr. 23, 2004) can no longer create CDs from Apple's DRM-protected songs. The DRM-protected songs get burned to the disc but produce no sound when they are played (audio data seems to be zeroed). I'm running Mac OS X 10.3.3 with the latest QuickTime Pro v6.5.1 software.

The reason this is a significant development is that some users who may have previously relied upon the Toast software to create music CDs will no longer be able to convert their iTunes purchases into standard audio CDs. I'm sure that there are a fair number of iTunes Music store customers who have relied upon Toast to create CDs because Toast has generally supported a wider range of third-party CD burners than has Apple's iTunes software. Toast also supports advanced CD feature such as CD TEXT and the creation of Enhanced Audio CDs (audio CD compatible discs that also contains video and photos). The iTunes Player does not support any of these options and as I previously mentioned some users may have third-party CD burners that do not work with Apple's iTunes Player.

So, we now have a situation where a change in Apple's DRM has at least partially "broken" a user's access to his or her legally purchased music. I can only hope that Apple and/or Roxio can correct this problem without delay.

[dontmatter]

Yay, thank god. Like many, I think the deal with itms provides plenty of leeway, and if you're going to run into trouble with that, you can always buy a CD, burn and rerip, etc. What they give you is generous, there's really no need for cracking it. And, if they want selling online to be legitimate AT ALL, they must do this.

That said, I'm dissapointed that this broke mytunes and gettunes also. There's a big difference between preventing piracy of the music you're selling, and preventing piracy of music that's simply played on something you make. mytunes et al. were never effective against fairplay, and only took unprotected music that could have been gotten through SMB browsing, just not with the same ease. I'm just uncomfortable with this level of proactivity being set as a precedent. If something illegal can be done on a piece of sofware that was designed for perfectly legitimate uses, and the maker of the legal software decides it's their vigilante duty to block the software that works with theirs to make stuff illegal, what comes of it? Wouldn't this standard make it perfectly logical and legitimate for apple (and, god forbid, microsoft) to make things like acquisition, Kazaa, etc. unable to work, as well as find ways to block the million illegal things one can do on the internet? Isn't this going a bit far?

[Spades]

There's a third area. Use in any app outside of iTunes where conversion is required. This used to work by using quicktime to do the conversion, but now quicktime just exports silence when you try to convert a protected file. No iMovie. No Roxio. Probably no GarageBand. It worked before, so why did they suddenly remove it? As far as the DRM goes, stripping with quicktime was no better than the CD Burn/Rip method, which still works.

I agree the DRM is fair, especially with the 5 computer allowance. That should cover most people on both home and work machines. That said, there are still two areas Apple needs to address to truly make FairPlay DRM fair:

1) Linux compatability
2) MP3 player support

[pEZ]

I think is fantastic that Apple is going after these programs. They do need to go away. Especially because of the fact that there is a built-in DRM-stripping tool right inside iTunes...just burn an audio cd...

[SiliconAddict]

My complaints about Apple's DRM has drastically decreased now that they have increased the number of computers you can associated with an account to 5. I think 5 is a pretty robust number. Maybe a good half dozen would be better but right now most people's complaints should be quelled with this increase.

My biggest remaining grips about iTMS is twofold:

-The biggest is that Apple has left Linux out of the picture in terms of iTunes. Apple owe what OS X is today to the *nix open source community. How much of their tech that is in OS X is based on open source? IMHO by ignoring Linux and only supporting MS it's a slap in the face of everyone who has contributed to the open source movement. I think part of this has resulted in a backlash by the *nix community to see who can come up with the slickest way to allow

-Secondly, and not a technically a DRM prob, it still is a issue that is going to become a thorn in the side of Apple if it comes to pass. That issue is the likelihood of the RIAA jacking up the price of music. DRM, quality, and convenience be danged. I'm NOT paying more then 99 cents per song! Go ahead and try it. I will SO jump back on P2P. As it stands I'm NOT impressed with albums being jacked up to their hardcopy counterparts. Can you say load o' high yield crap?!

[ZildjianKX]

My complaints about Apple's DRM has drastically decreased now that they have increased the number of computers you can associated with an account to 5. I think 5 is a pretty robust number. Maybe a good half dozen would be better but right now most people's complaints should be quelled with this increase.

My biggest remaining grips about iTMS is twofold:

-The biggest is that Apple has left Linux out of the picture in terms of iTunes. Apple owe what OS X is today to the *nix open source community. How much of their tech that is in OS X is based on open source? IMHO by ignoring Linux and only supporting MS it's a slap in the face of everyone who has contributed to the open source movement. I think part of this has resulted in a backlash by the *nix community to see who can come up with the slickest way to allow

-Secondly, and not a technically a DRM prob, it still is a issue that is going to become a thorn in the side of Apple if it comes to pass. That issue is the likelihood of the RIAA jacking up the price of music. DRM, quality, and convenience be danged. I'm NOT paying more then 99 cents per song! Go ahead and try it. I will SO jump back on P2P. As it stands I'm NOT impressed with albums being jacked up to their hardcopy counterparts. Can you say load o' high yield crap?!

Very well said. I'm glad there are people on the forum who don't think everything Apple does is perfect or without flaws.

[wordmunger]

I think is fantastic that Apple is going after these programs. They do need to go away. Especially because of the fact that there is a built-in DRM-stripping tool right inside iTunes...just burn an audio cd...
I think what Apple is doing is putting forth the appearance of going after these programs, to make it inconvenient for people to disable the DRM.

As Jobs indicated when iTMS was first starting, they know that it's impossible to create a perfect DRM system--and they have informed the record labels of this fact. If you can listen to the music, by definition it's possible to crack the DRM. All Apple is doing is making it a little more difficult to crack. The record labels know this, Apple knows this. Depending on my mood, it seems like a decent compromise to me.

[Bakafish]

The Steve is under no misapprehension that DRM is a lost cause, he knows that it will be broken. The countermeasures that they took for the sharing protocol were trivial, they are just trying to save face with the idiots in the music industry that believe in DRM.

There are more effective ways to pirate music than downloading iTunes songs, decrypting them and then distributing them. None of the decryption technologies allow you to break someone else's songs, so the piracy would have to be intentional. CD's are still the largest vector of unencrypted high quality source material. I'm dying to hear people screaming about how making AAC files from CD's are somehow going to cause iTunes to be shut down.

I love Apple and the iPod, but frankly I don't like the thought that my songs are locked in to only being played back on Apple authorized platforms (no Linux, Palm, Symbian or other portable unit support.) Yes, I know the iTunes store is subsidized by iPod sales. But would you be happy if Apple said you could only play back iTunes songs if you owned an iPod? The ability for me to decrypt my files losslessly and use them on another device falls within fair use, although I grant that it is in conflict with Apples terms of agreement.

Piracy will always happen. Stripping DRM from AAC files for personal use is the same thing as making your own AAC's from a CD. The difference in cost is justified in that you don't get to re-rip them in a superior format/higher bit-rate in the future. Just don't put them online for others to steal, it's as simple as that.

[chasingapple]

Go Apple! Good for you!

[ITR 81]

My complaints about Apple's DRM has drastically decreased now that they have increased the number of computers you can associated with an account to 5. I think 5 is a pretty robust number. Maybe a good half dozen would be better but right now most people's complaints should be quelled with this increase.

My biggest remaining grips about iTMS is twofold:

-The biggest is that Apple has left Linux out of the picture in terms of iTunes. Apple owe what OS X is today to the *nix open source community. How much of their tech that is in OS X is based on open source? IMHO by ignoring Linux and only supporting MS it's a slap in the face of everyone who has contributed to the open source movement. I think part of this has resulted in a backlash by the *nix community to see who can come up with the slickest way to allow

-Secondly, and not a technically a DRM prob, it still is a issue that is going to become a thorn in the side of Apple if it comes to pass. That issue is the likelihood of the RIAA jacking up the price of music. DRM, quality, and convenience be danged. I'm NOT paying more then 99 cents per song! Go ahead and try it. I will SO jump back on P2P. As it stands I'm NOT impressed with albums being jacked up to their hardcopy counterparts. Can you say load o' high yield crap?!

Eventually someone will make a app. you can use on Linux. I know they have with iSight.

[ClimbingTheLog]

It's their product and when you sign up you're agreeing to their terms.

No, you're agreeing to any future terms they might wish to levy upon you - that's no agreement at all. For instance, 10 playlist burns to 7. No longer works with Toast (like they never tried that knowing that's the only way some people can burn to CD, but hey if Toast can get raw data so can something else).

And sticking with the current version just isn't realistic. Why? The iTunes 4.2 won't work with some future version of OSX, guaranteed. Apple will stop providing security updates for current versions of OSX at some point, guaranteed. So, at some point the choice will be sticking with the DRM terms you agreed to, or getting hacked. It's not really a choice, and therein lies the problem.

If you don't like it keep buying CDs, use another service, or do illegal downloads.

Unfortunately, many people will opt for the latter.

Apple's DRM is the best as far as I'm concerned. Sure unlimited use would be great but not gonna happen, anytime soon anyway.

Yeah, none of this is Apple's fault. They're at the mercy of the RIAA monopoly. Apple couldn't care less, they offer the least restrictive DRM out there, but that doesn't change the fact that DRM is bad for the consumer.

[denm316]

It makes no sense, if people are so concerned with hacking the DRM, which is illegal, why do they even download from iTunes in the firstplace, why not just use Limewire of Kazaa.

Illegal is Illegal no matter how you look at it, it is not anymore legal if you buy it then strip the DRM.

[NP3]

There's a third area. Use in any app outside of iTunes where conversion is required. This used to work by using quicktime to do the conversion, but now quicktime just exports silence when you try to convert a protected file. No iMovie. No Roxio. Probably no GarageBand. It worked before, so why did they suddenly remove it? As far as the DRM goes, stripping with quicktime was no better than the CD Burn/Rip method, which still works.

So wait....i can't even export it to an .aiff or mp3 file to use in FCP??

I think "Fair use" should include using it in your own home movies....

[onemoof]

To those of you that are having trouble using the songs in iTunes did you update your QuickTime software yesterday also? It says when you install the new iTunes that it won't work outside of iTunes until you also update QuickTime.

[Awimoway]

It makes no sense, if people are so concerned with hacking the DRM, which is illegal, why do they even download from iTunes in the firstplace, why not just use Limewire of Kazaa.

Illegal is Illegal no matter how you look at it, it is not anymore legal if you buy it then strip the DRM.

A very good point. I think they must be doing it merely because they can—computer geeks taking it as a personal challenge. Or to stick it to Apple.

[robeen]

according to slashdot the new drm has already been broken.

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/29/1554231&mode=thread&tid=107&tid=141&tid=187&tid=188

[Azmordean]

A very good point. I think they must be doing it merely because they can—computer geeks taking it as a personal challenge. Or to stick it to Apple.

No more likely its this thing called morality that some people have. Sure, both may be illegal, but I know a lot of Linux folks who might want to dl music who would feel a lot better about buying a song properly then stripping DRM for personal use than stealing outright off of Limewire.

[SiliconAddict]

I was figuring 4.5 would include some anti-drm stuff. I see that as probably the trend for all future versions constant updates to thwart the latest anti-drm utilities.


Technically wouldn't Apple's response be anti-anti-DRM stuff. Now we have to wait for the anti-anti-anti-DRM software to flood the market. :eek:

Honestly, I think Apple's and Palm's DRMS's are easily the best on the market. I've tried Microsoft method with their e-books. OMG. I picked up one e-book on the system and never returned. *hugs his Pocket PC with Palm E-book reader* :)

People need to come to the realization that DRM is the future of all digital media at least in some form or another. I hate it as much as the next person but it's going to be a fact of life in the long run. At this point I'm not so much concerned any more with DRM then with the transparency of the process and the rights we are given to our media. IMHO, Palm's is down right balmy with no limit to the number of devices you can place a book on and no control by Palm. (e.g. The activation scheme is your credit card number, you used to buy the book, which is hashed into an encrypted code on the e-book. It sounds complex it really isn't.) Apple's seems to be on the very fringe of acceptable usage. Microsoft's method sucks rocks. And then some implementations by the various labels are down right hostile to the user.
As far as I'm concerned no one was gotten it 100% right. The big picture concern though is long term viability of a rights standard. What happens if X company decides to stop providing Y service and shuts down there servers. Users who have invested a crap load are SOL when they can no longer activate their computer. I go to a store right now and pick up a CD there is almost no chance in 5 years that that CD is not going to play in a CD player. I purchase a track on iTMS, MusicMatch, Napster, etc there is no guarantee that that music will be accessible in 10 years. Imp not overly concerted about Apple screwing everyone over due to the likelihood (You don't sell 70 million tracks without some future support.) of them having some form of conversion process (e.g. Convert from AAC1/FP2 to AAC4/FP5) but it still is a concern nonetheless. Mores with Microsoft who has a reputation of scrapping any pseudo standards they create and going back to the drawing board.

[eSnow]

It is great that Apple has finally taken a firm stance towards those DRM-cracking applications. After all, Apples DRM scheme is so much more friendly than anything else on the market, we as consumers should be glad we get it.

And because Apples iCollar, iLeash, and iMuzzle give us so much more leeway than MS' evil ActiveCollar, WindowsMediaLeash and MSMuzzle, we all should bleat happily like the baaa-lambs we are. Turn your backs to those who tell you you could live without iLeash, it is just not true in the long run, because then the evil shepherds associates will crack down on you and take away the iGrass you are munching...

In short: no iTunes update for me until PlayFair got an update. I am dumb, but not that dumb.

[sibelius]

I don't see the big deal about getting rid of the encoding security on the songs. Why? If you bought the music why do you care if other people have a hard time listening to it?

If you REALLY want them to listen to it why don't you give them your USER NAME and PASSWORD so they can authenticate their computer to play YOUR music. What? You won't do that? What? You don't TRUST them with your personal information??? Yeah... I don't think I would trust a thief either. You'll go out of your way to pirate/steal music but become all clutched-up when it comes to your own "security". What a pile of crap. You know who you are... and you honestely can't see that your personal "security" and the "security" behind copyrighted songs are no different, right? If you can steal someone else's material and have no problems with that, then why don't you go ahead and post your iTunes Music Store ID and Password on this site... or is that somehow different??? Maybe I should just hack your system... after all information is supposed to be 'free', right???

Boneheads....

I know these two guys... they have a screaming 2MB internet pipe and they spend ALL THEIR TIME downloading these DVD image files off the internet, re-ripping the image files into these DiVX encoded pieces of crap and burning discs. They have THOUSANDS of these things. They spend hours, and hours, and hours, every single night doing this illegal stuff... all for movies that were videotaped in a theater that look like crap.

Me? I prefer to go to Target and drop $15 on the real DVD. It saves me about eight hours and my copy is perfect. Plus, I'm not a thief.

But they really do belive that they're "getting one over" on the movie industry. If they were to rack up the time they spend on blank media (not to mention the media you toss out because of a bad burn) the cost of their $150 per month internet connection, the TIME they spend tracking all these downloads... the time they spend on encoding, trimming, and editing these clips, etc., etc., etc.... all for a single movie. Divide all that time up into the $15 the disc would cost you at the store and you can easily see that they are actually PAYING money out of their own pockets in order to get these low-quality rips for "free".

And the fact that iTunes music is only $1 per song is even more pathetic for thieves. Even flipping burgers at McDonald's your time is worth more than that, right?

Besides, everyone knows that if you HAVE to have the music in a non-protected format you simply have to burn the playlist to a disc, then just re-rip the music from that disc as MP3 files. duh

Of course, these thieves are just too lazy for that, I forgot.

sibelius

[SiliconAddict]

Eventually someone will make a app. you can use on Linux. I know they have with iSight.

The difference being is if it doesn't come from Apple and can read FP wrapped AAC files whoever makes that app is breaking the......**Head spins around as he pukes the word** DMCA

iSight is an open piece of hardware. If someone hacks together a piece of software from another platform Apple won't give a rip. If they are breaking their DRM scheme that is another matter altogether.

[Spades]

Well, try it first. Don't just take my word for it. I only said "probably" GarageBand. iMovie and Roxio are the only apps I've personally seen or have heard good reports of not working. I haven't heard of any apps that require conversion that do still work, so I'm making a pretty big guess based on my understanding of how iMovie makes use of quicktime. Just because I'm 90% sure doesn't mean I'm right. ;)

And yes, fair use does include using it in your own home movies. You just can't exhibit your home movie publicly then.

So wait....i can't even export it to an .aiff or mp3 file to use in FCP??

I think "Fair use" should include using it in your own home movies....

[SiliconAddict]

And the fact that iTunes music is only $1 per song is even more pathetic for thieves. Even flipping burgers at McDonald's your time is worth more than that, right?

sibelius


Depends. I have a few friends that have over 18,000 songs, one with 28,000 I asked him to play something from Turkey 2 weeks ago. Don't aks. :eek: ) on their system that they have downloaded, swapped with friends, ripped from friends CD's, etc, etc. Hmmm let me think about that a second. New car.....lots of music....new car....lots of music. hard decision. :p ;) Is it right? I'm not making that call. But is it worth their time. I'd say yes.

[CrackedButter]

I don't have to worry about this or care about the iTMS because...

drum roll please...

...i buy music discounted at the stores or from independants dirt cheap with no DRM.

I wonder what Bruce Lee would of said in my sig?
iTunes Music Store isn't useful.

[travishill]

according to slashdot the new drm has already been broken.

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/29/1554231&mode=thread&tid=107&tid=141&tid=187&tid=188

As I said before, this has nothing to do with the DRM protected M4P files. This has to do with the sharing protocol.

[3-22]

Personally, I hope either playfair cracks the new drm soon, or Apple releases their DRM system to third-party developers. What Apple is doing, is basically locking in their customers to itunes and ipod. This is exactly the same thing that Microsoft did with Word. We don't need yet another monopoly-abusing company.

Of course they are locking you into the iPod, the music store itself generates little to no profits right now. Take away the iPod = iTunes/Music Store RIP...

[X86BSD]

My complaints about Apple's DRM has drastically decreased now that they have increased the number of computers you can associated with an account to 5. I think 5 is a pretty robust number. Maybe a good half dozen would be better but right now most people's complaints should be quelled with this increase.

My biggest remaining grips about iTMS is twofold:

-The biggest is that Apple has left Linux out of the picture in terms of iTunes. Apple owe what OS X is today to the *nix open source community. How much of their tech that is in OS X is based on open source? IMHO by ignoring Linux and only supporting MS it's a slap in the face of everyone who has contributed to the open source movement. I think part of this has resulted in a backlash by the *nix community to see who can come up with the slickest way to allow


Linux? Hahahah. Ok im done laughing. Seriously. What are you on that you think Apple owes the "Linux community" anything? Is there even a single line of Linux code in Darwin sans GCC? Which is the FSF anyway. This is the problem I have with the whole Linux/GPL/FSF crowd. They think because you write something free and release it and the source somehow that equates to someone owing you for it. You don't see the BSD people whining and moaning iTunes doesn't work on BSD do you? Or why there is no Quicktime technology required to use iTunes ported to BSD? No. Of course not.
You also do not see them whining that Apple used BSD code and that they owe us something. Apple has contributed many things back to the various BSD Unix projects they have used code from. If Linux people are so enraged that people use the supposedly "free" Linux code available without giving anything back maybe they should stop calling it free. Anyway the whole notion that Apple *owes* Linux or anyone else anything is absurd to the utmost.

But I agree music over 99/cents is not going to fly well. Most of the music today is garbage and most people probably only get 99cents out of a song.
Who sits and listens to a song over and over and over. Most people hear it a few times and buy something new.

[D*I*S_Frontman]

I, too, am glad Apple is actively clamping down on the theft of intellectual property.

For those of you who dislike iTune's DRM restrictions, the choice is simple:

DON'T USE ITUNES!

Nobody is forcing you to use Apple's program or services. If you find the restrictions too harsh, then you can always go to a discount CD store and buy your own CD copies of the music you choose, encode them to whatever format you prefer, to run on whichever player you own. Apple does not force anyone to use iTunes. Delete the damn thing from your system if it bugs you so much.

Or, you can subscribe to some of the other online music stores and deal with THEIR DRM/ownership schemes.

Or, you can just steal music from artists by pirating it and swapping it around with your other thieving friends. And I hope every one of you gets busted for it.

The resentment toward Apple for its self-contained system (iTunes + iPod) is infantile. No one forced you to buy a Mac, and iPod, or use iTunes. The conditions were clearly laid out for you and you agreed to them before you began enjoing their usage. If you don't like them, you have only yourself to blame. When you bought your Linux system, were you aware that it was not a Mac? When you picked up that cheap piece-o-crappola mp3 player, were you not aware that it was not, in fact, an iPod?

As far as restrictions go, this latest version, by upping the registered CPUs from 3 to 5 is far LESS restrictive than ever for a consumer and legal owner of music. And if going from 10 to 7 burns with indentical track listings is a problem, you are using the music illegally. How many exact replica back-ups do you need? Giving them away as Christmas presents? Well, praise the Lord, you pirating criminal.

This is all a continuation of the immature, adolescent-minded idea that somehow the average Joe on the street is entitled to listen to every piece of recorded music ever written. Sorry. If you don't want to pay the artist who wrote and recorded the music (either directly or via his agents, i.e., the "evil" record labels), then fine: write your own songs.

[seamuskrat]

Well, A project with some previous AAC protected soungs are now broken. No warnings or anything. But when I go to preview my iMovie project in iDVD the 10 seconds of sound clip I had are silent now. Go figure.
That is something that needs to be addressed soon by Apple.
That and the fact my G4 tower has a BTC 52X CD R inside of it and iTubes does not like it, and Toast does.
Without any warning, i lost the ability ta take my purchased musci and make a CD for my car.

[fpnc]

iMovie v4.01 still works with iTunes-purchased, DRM-protected songs. You can add protected iTunes tracks to an iMovie timeline and then export -- "share" -- the audio to an unprotected, QuickTime, AIFF audio track. However, after updating to QuickTime v6.5.1 and iTunes v4.5 earlier versions of iMovie (I tried v4.0) will only produce silence when you try to use a DRM-protected song.

Also, I believe that GarageBand has never supported AAC songs (DRM-protected or not). I think it only works with AIFF, MP3, and WAV files.

Thus, the only application that apparently has suffered from the new version of iTunes and QuickTime is Roxio's Toast software which can no longer burn DRM-protected songs to CDs (well, it burns the songs but all you get is silence). So, for Toast users this change in iTunes/QuickTime has broken a previously Apple-supported and probably completely legal use of iTunes songs (i.e. using Toast to burn iTunes songs to a CD).

[SiliconAddict]

Linux? Hahahah. Ok im done laughing. Seriously. What are you on that you think Apple owes the "Linux community" anything? Is there even a single line of Linux code in Darwin sans GCC? Which is the FSF anyway. This is the problem I have with the whole Linux/GPL/FSF crowd. They think because you write something free and release it and the source somehow that equates to someone owing you for it. You don't see the BSD people whining and moaning iTunes doesn't work on BSD do you? Or why there is no Quicktime technology required to use iTunes ported to BSD? No. Of course not..

Don't be obtuse. I said *nix as in Unix, Linux, etc. The core of OS X is BSD which is open source which is based off of a Unix variant. Without Darwin Apple would probably still be working on OS X as we speak. At the end of the day BSD/Linux are in the same family and it’s a pretty good bet a fair portion of the people that made BSD what it is also have worked on a Linux variant. So for all those people that Apple has to thank for doing the behind the scenes grunt work of the development of the core of their OS along with KDE for its browser, SBM, SSH, X11 and god know how many other techs that were pioneered on Linux/BSD/Unix they get a nice slap for a think you. I'm talking about more then just Linux even though that is probably the most important aspect. I'm talking open source in general. I think a little appreciate would be in order.

[3.1416]

That said, I'm dissapointed that this broke mytunes and gettunes also. There's a big difference between preventing piracy of the music you're selling, and preventing piracy of music that's simply played on something you make.

Exactly, and that's the fundamental problem with any DRM. It will never be possible to stop infringing use without also preventing legitimate uses.

[Steve M]

There's a third area. Use in any app outside of iTunes where conversion is required. This used to work by using quicktime to do the conversion, but now quicktime just exports silence when you try to convert a protected file. No iMovie. No Roxio. Probably no GarageBand. It worked before, so why did they suddenly remove it? As far as the DRM goes, stripping with quicktime was no better than the CD Burn/Rip method, which still works.

Wrong. I just put a track I purchased yesterday into a quickie iMove, exported to QuickTime, and played the movie on an unupdated, unauthorized computer with no issues.

[dontmatter]

Exactly, and that's the fundamental problem with any DRM. It will never be possible to stop infringing use without also preventing legitimate uses.

Well, it wasn't the DRM that stopped gettunes (which, itself, isn't QUITE a legitimate use, but more so than DRM stripping, I'd say). It was the way they allowed 3rd party software to access itunes that was changed. Iportance is, they weren't enforcing their DRM, but deciding that it was their job to regulate 3rd party software, that was much more the responsibility of the RIAA or somebody directly effected by said software.

[rjwill246]

<i>broken already...



Personally, I hope either playfair cracks the new drm soon, or Apple releases their DRM system to third-party developers. What Apple is doing, is basically locking in their customers to itunes and ipod. This is exactly the same thing that Microsoft did with Word. We don't need yet another monopoly-abusing company.

Then don't use the service. You don' t have to, you know.

[cb911]

well, you get what you pay for... so if you don't like it, don't buy it. or you could always just keep buying CDs. ;) :p

alternatively, just use the Russian MP3 site. legal downloads at 6c a track! :eek: pay by the MB, i think it was USD$5 for 500MB. :D :cool: if you can get on the server when it isn't busy.

[dontmatter]

Exactly, and that's the fundamental problem with any DRM. It will never be possible to stop infringing use without also preventing legitimate uses.

Actually, the DRM had nothing to do with mytunes/gettunes (which, I might add, are not quite legitimate uses, but more so than breaking the DRM). And that's the problem-I'm perfectly fine with apple protecting their DRM, but what blocks gettunes is the way third party software is accesses itunes. That's the issue- apple has decided it's their duty to disable third party software that has the potential for abuse (against music that isn't apple's either). That is not apple's buisness, and should be undertaken by the RIAA or other approprite body.

[dontmatter]

I don't want to be mistaken for a troll, but...

does anybody know if there's a windows version of tunesbrowser? Don't worry, it's not for me, but none friends unwise enough to be using windows are upgrading their itunes b/c of the lack of mytunes... and party shuffle is so cool!

[dontmatter]

well, you get what you pay for... so if you don't like it, don't buy it. or you could always just keep buying CDs. ;) :p

alternatively, just use the Russian MP3 site. legal downloads at 6c a track! :eek: pay by the MB, i think it was USD$5 for 500MB. :D :cool: if you can get on the server when it isn't busy.

Hmm, russian download, 6¢ a track...no, that's not shady in the least, not shady at all.

What is this russian site?

[Jeff_R]

Personally, I hope either playfair cracks the new drm soon, or Apple releases their DRM system to third-party developers. What Apple is doing, is basically locking in their customers to itunes and ipod. This is exactly the same thing that Microsoft did with Word. We don't need yet another monopoly-abusing company.

Not quite the same thing, in my opinion. Apple is the hardware and software maker, and the host of the music files. As far as I'm concerned, they can do as they please with both. With Microsoft, however, they were utilizing their dominance in the operating system realm to impose their other software on businesses and users.

[Spades]

I updated quicktime, iTunes, and iMovie all in one go, so I have only tried using iMovie 4.0.1. I just tried it again since two people have said it worked for them, and I got nothing. I have Quicktime 6.5.1, iTunes 4.5, and iMovie 4.0.1. Importing a protected file just gives me silence.

iMovie v4.01 still works with iTunes-purchased, DRM-protected songs. You can add protected iTunes tracks to an iMovie timeline and then export -- "share" -- the audio to an unprotected, QuickTime, AIFF audio track. However, after updating to QuickTime v6.5.1 and iTunes v4.5 earlier versions of iMovie (I tried v4.0) will only produce silence when you try to use a DRM-protected song.

[Steve M]

I updated quicktime, iTunes, and iMovie all in one go, so I have only tried using iMovie 4.0.1. I just tried it again since two people have said it worked for them, and I got nothing. I have Quicktime 6.5.1, iTunes 4.5, and iMovie 4.0.1. Importing a protected file just gives me silence.

I didn't import a file -- I selected a protected track from the Audio panel, and then Shared my movie as QuickTime. I was then able to play the QuickTime movie on several machines -- with different versions of QuickTime -- and the movie played on all of them, music included. So while I wasn't able to strip the DRM, I -was- able to include purchased music in my iMovie.

[Spades]

Same here. I select the track from the audio panel, share the movie as Quicktime, and all I get is silence. When you preview the movie, does the audio work?

I didn't import a file -- I selected a protected track from the Audio panel, and then Shared my movie as QuickTime. I was then able to play the QuickTime movie on several machines -- with different versions of QuickTime -- and the movie played on all of them, music included. So while I wasn't able to strip the DRM, I -was- able to include purchased music in my iMovie.

[MrMacMan]

what's the point in hacking the apple drm anyway? I think it's fair enough already..
Well, just not for everyone.

It makes no sense, if people are so concerned with hacking the DRM, which is illegal, why do they even download from iTunes in the firstplace, why not just use Limewire of Kazaa.

Illegal is Illegal no matter how you look at it, it is not anymore legal if you buy it then strip the DRM.
There is a difference bewteen breaking encrpytion and downloading music (copyright infringement).


Look of it in a simple manner, I buy a dvd.
Bring it home and want to watch it.

No Problems.

I pop it into my dvd tray -- Problem.

I use Linux and there are no licensed dvd viewing programs.
You have to crack the simple encrpytion (Lowest crack yet is 6 lines of code) and watch the movie you legally bought.


Same for Linux and iTMS.



Years in the future when Apple's iTMS is long gone I doubt I will be able to listen to the songs. I would have to crack their encrpytion (which would probably take seconds in the future) to get the songs...

Should this be illegal if I legally bought the songs?
I don't think so, but right now it is. Thank you DMCA.

Besides, everyone knows that if you HAVE to have the music in a non-protected format you simply have to burn the playlist to a disc, then just re-rip the music from that disc as MP3 files. duh

Of course, these thieves are just too lazy for that, I forgot.

sibelius
Uhh, wouldn't that go against your theory of wasting money?

You burn it to a cd just to rip it back to your computer... yes go make a lossy slightly bad sounding copy and convert it back into an even more lossy sounding copy... ech.


Why not listen to static eh?




Look, DRM is only good for as long as the company that support is (apple's iTMS) is around.


With normal files you can always re-rip or even just copy the file to the new location. With DRM and the company is gone you might as well be trying to defuse a bomb with your eyes blindfolded and your hands tied.


--MrMacMan

[X86BSD]

Don't be obtuse. I said *nix as in Unix, Linux, etc. The core of OS X is BSD which is open source which is based off of a Unix variant. Without Darwin Apple would probably still be working on OS X as we speak. At the end of the day BSD/Linux are in the same family and it’s a pretty good bet a fair portion of the people that made BSD what it is also have worked on a Linux variant. So for all those people that Apple has to thank for doing the behind the scenes grunt work of the development of the core of their OS along with KDE for its browser, SBM, SSH, X11 and god know how many other techs that were pioneered on Linux/BSD/Unix they get a nice slap for a think you. I'm talking about more then just Linux even though that is probably the most important aspect. I'm talking open source in general. I think a little appreciate would be in order.

BSD *is* Unix. It has more legal and technical right to claim UNIX heritage then anyone. But BSD people just dont care enough to argue such a pointless point at this point in the history of UNIX. Linux and BSD I would argue are not the same family. SysV vs BSD.

Actually those projects get their code USED. What is the point of releasing code if no one uses it? There isn't one. It's pointless. If you are releasing code to be used and then have some kind of moral dilemma that people are using it, again just stop releasing code. Apple contributing code back to BSD is appreciation. And I seriously doubt, that McKusick, Carrels, Kolstad, Leffler, Joy and others ever touched Linux. But im willing to be proven wrong.

[fpnc]

I updated quicktime, iTunes, and iMovie all in one go, so I have only tried using iMovie 4.0.1. I just tried it again since two people have said it worked for them, and I got nothing. I have Quicktime 6.5.1, iTunes 4.5, and iMovie 4.0.1. Importing a protected file just gives me silence.

I've tried several DRM-protected songs and they all worked in iMovie v4.01. I even moved these converted songs to a non-Macintosh host and they also played there. Finally, I just tried using the Import feature in iMovie and that worked also (previously I had used the Audio panel to just add the DRM-protected song as a second-audio track in iMovie). The import dialog even shows the songs with the little lock symbol so I know these are DRM-protected (besides I know that they were purchased on the iTunes store). I can also hear the music when I preview the movie.

Note, however, that BEFORE I upgraded to iMovie v4.01 I WAS getting silence when I tried to use or import one of these very same songs.

The only difference between our setups may be that I'm using QuickTime Pro, but I can't believe that Apple would enable a feature like this in the Pro (for pay) version of QuickTime while preventing it in the free version.

[Spades]

It's not even that. I have Pro as well.

The only difference between our setups may be that I'm using QuickTime Pro, but I can't believe that Apple would enable a feature like this in the Pro (for pay) version of QuickTime while preventing it in the free version.

[fpnc]

It's not even that. I have Pro as well.

Maybe you need to reinstall the QuickTime and iMovie updates. Only other issue, I'm using a pretty clean copy of OS X, no third-party hacks or haxies. I seem to remember reading just today that a third-party iTunes enhancer was causing some problems with the latest versions of iTunes and QuickTime.

[mhouse]

If you REALLY want them to listen to it why don't you give them your USER NAME and PASSWORD so they can authenticate their computer to play YOUR music. What? You won't do that? What? You don't TRUST them with your personal information??? Yeah... I don't think I would trust a thief either. You'll go out of your way to pirate/steal music but become all clutched-up when it comes to your own "security". What a pile of crap. You know who you are... and you honestely can't see that your personal "security" and the "security" behind copyrighted songs are no different, right? If you can steal someone else's material and have no problems with that, then why don't you go ahead and post your iTunes Music Store ID and Password on this site... or is that somehow different??? Maybe I should just hack your system... after all information is supposed to be 'free', right???

Boneheads....
sibelius

This post is absolutely, positively right in every way that a post can be right. Amen, brother.

This double-standard where DRM is concerned is so clearly intellectually bankrupt I can't believe how many people actually espouse it. Information is "free"? No one owns it? Sure, send a copy of your name, address, and the number of DVDs you've ripped to your local FBI office. Then we'll all be impressed with your philosophical consistency.

And, btw, where are those personal credit card numbers, passwords, bank accounts...

Go on...we're waiting. Don't be like the "evil corporate overlords" who put all this horrible DRM on things! ;)

Seriously, I don't care much one way or the other. Just be intellectually honest and say, "I want to steal stuff." Don't try to back it up with some brain-dead, hopelessly bogus "rights" argument.

[kindall]

So for all those people that Apple has to thank for doing the behind the scenes grunt work of the development of the core of their OS along with KDE for its browser, SBM, SSH, X11 and god know how many other techs that were pioneered on Linux/BSD/Unix they get a nice slap for a think you.

I've looked, but I just don't see anything in any open-source license that says the licensor (i.e. Apple) must produce application software for a particular flavor of UNIX. If the people who created the software Apple is using wanted something specific for it, then they shouldn't have released their software as open-source. It's not an "open-source unless you happen to make some highly desirable software" license.

[applebum]

You know, I have been breaking the DRM on these songs losslessly (aside from the loss built into ITMS songs) since day one. This requires no software. I simply plug my Mac into my stereo, play the playlist I want to record and then record it using my stereo comonent CD recorder. I realize that it is real time and a very slow process, but this is just what we had to do with tapes. I get great sound quality (can even enhance the sound a bit) and I get CD's with no DRM. I don't do this to intentionally circumvent DRM, this used to be the only way I had to make a copy of the music I downloaded (my CRT iMac didn't have a cd recorder). So, would this be violating the rules to do this? Actually, when I do this, I can burn the same playlist as many times as I want, because it is simply being played as far as iTunes knows. This is certainly and interesting work around...any thoughts?

[zync]

I realize that Apple is very fair with regard to DRM but the simple fact is, DRM shouldn't exist in the first place. Now I realize they wouldn't be able to have the iTMS without DRM but still it's very annoying to have these files and, even if it's never a problem, know that they are protected and that you can't do everything with them that you wish. I haven't read all the posts so please excuse me if this same exact point has been brought up a million times by now, but if I buy a CD from the store and rip it to AAC it is unprotected and I could do all the things with it execs fear. Now, why should I have to pay for music on iTMS and not have the same freedom as when I buy it on CD? Why buy anything on iTMS? I hate having protected files. Couple that with not having the actual CD, booklet, etc. and there's no point that I can see to buy songs on iTunes unless you want just one song. Places like Circuit City and the like have started to offer CDs at reasonable prices and so I find iTMS pretty much pointless. I like what they've done, don't get me wrong, but for me the system isn't worth it. I've bought 1 song because it was a pre-release and I don't like getting radio quality MP3s from P2P. And yeah, I don't see a point paying even the 99cents it costs to get a song from an artist that I don't wish to support. I don't think getting singles and the like off P2P is wrong either. I guess I just see it this way:

I want to do with my music as I please, especially since I've paid for it. I don't think I should have to support crappy artists who have 1 good song. I'm an artist myself and I don't think I should make people pay to view my stuff at all, and especially not if they only like 1 picture. MP3s, etc. are lossy so I could also say I don't mind people taking pictures of my art. However, if someone blatantly stole a CD, or in my case a picture, without permission that's wrong. Many people, as far as I know, have actually bought more CDs due to filesharing. I used to never buy CDs and now I do. Why? Cause they've become cheaper. The RIAA neglects to mention this. CD sales are directly proportional to CD prices. They've been down because prices have been up.

/rant

[eddyg]

I don't have to worry about this or care about the iTMS because... <snip> ...i buy music discounted at the stores or from independants dirt cheap with no DRM.

However this all goes up in smoke when the frigging record labels start protecting the CDs so you can't rip them anymore. The last two CDs I bought in Australia wouldn't play in my Powerbook, that was a few months ago. I now no longer buy CDs, because they are useless to me, I only listen to music on my iPod.

I also can't use iTMS because it's not in Australia yet.

So that leaves me with P2P (no way) or just making do with my existing music, which is what I'm doing, I've got plenty of existing music, a lot of it not even listened to.

So, record labels, you're ******** yourselves out of my money, your fault.

Cheers, Edward.

[autrefois]

I want to do with my music as I please, especially since I've paid for it.

This actually answers a previous post, where they asked why people would want to strip protected iTunes music instead of just using Kazaa and getting them for free anyway.

People figure "I paid 99 cents for this song, I should be able to do whatever I dang well please with it."

On Kazaa, they can't justify it. It's blatantly wrong. It's pure stealing.

On iTunes, they think "I paid for it, so I own it." They think they can justify it.

But you don't own the music. You own a copy of the music. When you buy a book, you don't own the book, you own a copy of it.

To be more precise, iTunes now gives you the right to own FIVE copies of any given song for 99 measly cents. Less than 20 cents a copy!!* And that's STILL not good enough for some people, because they "paid for" the song.

Does anyone truly think 99 cents should buy unlimited copies of ANYTHING?!?

(* That's not even counting being allowed to make more copies for yourself by burning CDs.)

[dudemac]

what's the point in hacking the apple drm anyway? I think it's fair enough already..

Sure its fair enough if you own an iPod or have a win box that has XP or Win2k on it. But if you don't then the music you just paid for is impossible to play. Sure you could rip a bunch of CD's then re import them, but we are talking a lot of work, not to mention a reduction in sound quality. Stealing is different from using. There are laws that are violated by the use of DRM but that issue is not being addressed. So why are we paying for something that is less usable but more expensive? iTunes has done some really great things, but there needs to be more concessions made to the end user to really get a full blown adoption. Opening the DRM to others would be a start or just the elimination of it completely. And getting rid of lossy compression.

I don't use these apps to steal/trade/distribute but I do use it to play it on my other none mac machines. 5 machines might be enough for most but I happen to have several more than that and not all can run iTunes. So what am I to do? Personally I am hoping to be able to purchase loss-less music soon that has no DRM..... what a CD is currently. I like the single song concept, much better than the album, so I really hope apple is listening, because I know the record companies are not.

[travishill]

There are laws that are violated by the use of DRM but that issue is not being addressed.

What law(s) might those be? Fair use is not a right, it is a defense to copyright infringement. No where in the law does it say "you have these rights to do X, Y, and Z" it only says that you cannot be considered in violation of copyright if you meet certain conditions. Just because you may or may not be able to do certain things with a piece of copywritten work has nothing to do with copyright law.

No one has a license to any copywritten material by default. DRM and licenses that describe what you can do with copywritten material as part of the agreement for allowing you to use something is certainly fair game.

As an example, that's what the GPL is all about. You have no right to use the copywritten material unless you agree to their licensing terms, which include making the source available to a project that you may create with other GPL'd code.

I don't see what the issue is here. Do I think DRM will be a failed experiment, and should it go away? Probably. But there is certainly nothing illegal about it under current law.

[123]

Hmm, russian download, 6¢ a track...no, that's not shady in the least, not shady at all.

What is this russian site?

http://www.allofmp3.com

[ZildjianKX]

In the current form of the DRM, are you allowed to sell your AAC files to anyone else? If you purchase them, you should be able to transfer/sell them to another user. If not, this seems a bit limiting.

[Torajima]

This is all a continuation of the immature, adolescent-minded idea that somehow the average Joe on the street is entitled to listen to every piece of recorded music ever written. Sorry. If you don't want to pay the artist who wrote and recorded the music (either directly or via his agents, i.e., the "evil" record labels), then fine: write your own songs.

When I was in college, we didn't have mp3s or the internet, so we taped music off the radio. This was perfectly legal.

I fail to see how downloading music off the internet is much different.

What you, and apparently the music industry, mistakenly assume is that every downloaded song equals a lost sale... nothing could be further from the truth. On the one hand, you've got poor college students who wouldn't have bought the music anyway... no lost sale there. On the other hand, you've got people like me, who sample music before buying the CD. There is actually some evidence that the shutdown of Napster may have hurt the music industry more than it helped, for this very reason. People were discovering new music, and many were *buying* it.

Of course, I use iTunes for this now. If I like the whole album, I'll go to a music store and buy the CD. If I only like one or two songs, I'll buy from the iTunes store.

Still, I have some problems with iTunes. I don't like DRM. It assumes everyone is a thief, and in the end only harms the consumer. Any real pirate can easily circumvent pretty much any DRM scheme ever made.

iTunes has a 30 second preview, which is rarely enough to actually get a feel for the song. This may cause me to download songs "illegally" just to sample them.

iTunes has a horrible selection. Sure, it's getting better, but I'm surprised just how many Artists are missing, and how many CDs are imcomplete.

iTunes gives too large a cut to the record label, and not large enough cut to the artists themselves. This is my number one complaint about iTunes... Apple is basically helping the labels steal from the artists. Of course this has been going on for years, but I had hoped digital distribution would allow us to cut out the "middle man". Of course, this is what the recording industry truly fears.

[zync]

This actually answers a previous post, where they asked why people would want to strip protected iTunes music instead of just using Kazaa and getting them for free anyway.

People figure "I paid 99 cents for this song, I should be able to do whatever I dang well please with it."

On Kazaa, they can't justify it. It's blatantly wrong. It's pure stealing.

On iTunes, they think "I paid for it, so I own it." They think they can justify it.

But you don't own the music. You own a copy of the music. When you buy a book, you don't own the book, you own a copy of it.

To be more precise, iTunes now gives you the right to own FIVE copies of any given song for 99 measly cents. Less than 20 cents a copy!!* And that's STILL not good enough for some people, because they "paid for" the song.

Does anyone truly think 99 cents should buy unlimited copies of ANYTHING?!?

(* That's not even counting being allowed to make more copies for yourself by burning CDs.)


OK. Well, I'm glad that I at least made sense :) Anyway no, I don't really think that 99 cents should by me unlimited copies of anything, however if I had a network of 6 computers in my house I don't want to have to auth/de-auth the 5/6 computer just so I can stream a song that I own! No, I don't own the song itself, that's obvious, but I own the right to listen to the song. Techinically it's wrong for me to let anyone else hear it if you want to go that far with it. I don't care about putting the songs on unlimited numbers of CDs as in any case I may need a song on one or two CDs (I rarely ever burn CDs anymore). I just don't think it's right to have these freedoms with the CDs and not be able to have the same freedoms with my AACs. That doesn't make sense.

So as you can see, five copies may not be enough. Eventually I will have a studio with more than five computers and so this will become a problem. And yes we can expect to do whatever we dang well please because we paid for the license, just as you do with CDs. With CDs I can have as many copies as I can hold on a drive, why can't I with AAC.

And since we're on the topic of licensing, since I don't own the music itself, why can't I get a new CD at cost when I accidently scratch one? DVDs aren't like this either. DVDs can easily be messed up, but if I do the license doesn't get me squat. Why can't I turn in my tapes and get CDs at cost? I own the license don't I. My dad has some Atrac tapes so why can't he use his "license" to get a CD at cost? The point is, if they're going to argue this "licensing" stuff then they should stick by the other aspects of it.

[sibelius]

Depends. I have a few friends that have over 18,000 songs, one with 28,000 I asked him to play something from Turkey 2 weeks ago. Don't aks. :eek: ) on their system that they have downloaded, swapped with friends, ripped from friends CD's, etc, etc. Hmmm let me think about that a second. New car.....lots of music....new car....lots of music. hard decision. :p ;) Is it right? I'm not making that call. But is it worth their time. I'd say yes.


Well... I think you've hit the nail on the head. Is it right? Let's see.... new car... lots of money... new car... lots of money. Hard decision here as well. Yep... I guess I'll just have to walk into a bank and take their money in the middle of the night. Shoot... it's insured, so who's it really hurting, right? I see no difference.

The new car/lots of songs isn't the issue. Is it right? Is it legal? THAT's the issue. You can't compare the new car/lots of songs debate until the legal issue is resolved, as it's not the same argument.

Personally, if I don't think the rights (5 computer + iPods) is enough for me then I always have the option of purchasing the music elsewhere, listening to it for free when it pops on the radio, or just purchasing the music from a CD store. Better yet, get it at a used CD shop, or Pawn shop. There are a LOT of different options to the 'stealing' method. No one is twisting my arm.

Besides, if you have enough music to listen to that would equal the cost of a new car I would venture to guess that you couldn't afford the car in the first place... too busy listening to music to work, sleep, eat, or anything else. Come on... 28,000 songs, at an average of 3.5 minutes each is over 1,600 hours of music. I think that's more of a physological addiction to 'collecting' stuff (or pack-ratting) than it is really appreciating the music. Even top record producers don't have that kind of time on their hands... and they live in the industry.

sibelius

[zync]

When I was in college, we didn't have mp3s or the internet, so we taped music off the radio. This was perfectly legal.

I fail to see how downloading music off the internet is much different.

What you, and apparently the music industry, mistakenly assume is that every downloaded song equals a lost sale... nothing could be further from the truth. On the one hand, you've got poor college students who wouldn't have bought the music anyway... no lost sale there. On the other hand, you've got people like me, who sample music before buying the CD. There is actually some evidence that the shutdown of Napster may have hurt the music industry more than it helped, for this very reason. People were discovering new music, and many were *buying* it.


This is the argument I have used from day one. It's true of all of these arguments the RIAA and MPAA have made. In downloading music I have found that I have bought stuff more often. I feel that if I've downloaded and artist that deserves to get paid, I'll pay them and I'll also have quality songs that I know are great because I've ripped them myself. If music downloading didn't exist I wouldn't buy the artists' stuff anyway. So as I see it by downloading stuff I've actually given them more money, besides the goal of "art," which is what they're producing when they call themselves artists, is to get your stuff out no matter what.

The same holds true for that movie ad they show in theaters. Not all of those people profit from the movie, and most of them are paid regardless of how well the film does. The only thing that gets hurt is, guess who, the execs. In the case of movies it's more understanding that it's harder for the movies to be made if people get stiffed with the costs, but when most of the money for a CD goes to a representational body that has no other affiliation to the artists except through their labels it becomes a little harder for such claims to be made.

I don't think anyone has said it better than Torajima. Either the person is poor and wouldn't buy the CD anyway so there's no loss of sale and possibly a new reference if the songs are good. On the other hand someone may sample it and decide to buy. It's only the people who have money to buy such CDs and who are frugal with their money to the point that if they can get away with stealing they won't pay. There is also the chance that someone will hear the rest of the songs and dislike the CD, but all that does it make the general public happy that they didn't buy something they didn't like and that keeps negative feedback about the artists under control. After all if someone gets stuck with a CD they are more likely to badmouth it.

I'm still making this complicated so here goes:

Poor college student - downloads with no intent to buy anyway, so if the service didn't exists they still wouldn't be able to buy (however keep in mind they may buy later)

Sampler - either buys it or doesn't (representing normal sales anyway)

Full on Thief - has the money but won't buy anyway (there's probably only a 50% chance that they'd buy in the first place)

So what's the RIAA to do? Well, leave downloading be, don't sue the consumers who might buy your albums, and don't make yourselves look like an ass since you aren't the record companies themselves anyway and you couldn't be further from the artists who produce the music you get rich off of!

Also: we're forgetting here that we're buying a lossy copy of the song from the get-go so we're not even getting a copy of the exact song! With this limit in mind it would seem like you should have greater freedom with the iTMS AAC than the CD itself. Any derivative of the CD (MP3, AAC, etc.) should be treated with the same regard. That, my friends, is like the tape copy of a song from the radio, which is legal, AFAIK, since it's not a master copy of the song but a derivative.

[applebum]

So as you can see, five copies may not be enough. Eventually I will have a studio with more than five computers and so this will become a problem. And yes we can expect to do whatever we dang well please because we paid for the license, just as you do with CDs. With CDs I can have as many copies as I can hold on a drive, why can't I with AAC.



I was all prepared to blast this statement, as it has been my understanding that we were only allowed to make one copy of a CD - much like software - just for backup purposes. I went to research that just to be sure and came across this:

"When the United States Constitution was drafted, the idea that authors were entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed--and rejected [9]. Instead, the founders of our country adopted a different idea of copyright, one which places the public first[10]. Copyright in the United States is supposed to exist for the sake of users; benefits for publishers and even for authors are not given for the sake of those parties, but only as an inducement to change their behavior. As the Supreme Court said in Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal: "The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors."[11]

Under the Constitution's view of copyright, if the public prefers to be able to make copies in certain cases even if that means somewhat fewer works are published, the public's choice is decisive. There is no possible justification for prohibiting the public from copying what it wants to copy."

Link to article (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.html)

This makes an interesting point that would seem to say that DRM is just wrong. Perhaps our copyright laws have been twisted beyond what our forefathers would have expected??

[zync]

I was all prepared to blast this statement, as it has been my understanding that we were only allowed to make one copy of a CD - much like software - just for backup purposes. I went to research that just to be sure and came across this:

"When the United States Constitution was drafted, the idea that authors were entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed--and rejected [9]. Instead, the founders of our country adopted a different idea of copyright, one which places the public first[10]. Copyright in the United States is supposed to exist for the sake of users; benefits for publishers and even for authors are not given for the sake of those parties, but only as an inducement to change their behavior. As the Supreme Court said in Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal: "The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors."[11]

Under the Constitution's view of copyright, if the public prefers to be able to make copies in certain cases even if that means somewhat fewer works are published, the public's choice is decisive. There is no possible justification for prohibiting the public from copying what it wants to copy."

Link to article (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.html)

This makes an interesting point that would seem to say that DRM is just wrong. Perhaps our copyright laws have been twisted beyond what our forefathers would have expected??


That's an interesting find. Actually I was working on the grounds that copying CDs cannot be stopped because it'd be too difficult to enforce without abolishing CDs altogether. I have heard that only one copy of a CD can be made but I feel that that is preposterous in and of itself. Sure, I can take that copy and put it into every CD player in my house so that the most I can have playing (though it would still be illegal under usage rights) in my house at one time is two.

However this gets back to licensing such as that which Apple uses to sell OS X. Sure I have a license to one copy of OS X Panther, which means that I can have OS X Panther on only one machine at a time. I could legally have it on two machines if each time I used it on another computer I removed it from one. However this is just pointless. A person only has the capacity to use one computer to it's full extent at a time (disregarding automated tasks and what have you) so why not just skip the middle step (which is pointless) and just install on two machines and be done with it? If I'm the only person using those two machines why would it be illegal?

The same argument goes with iTMS DRM. I can auth/de-auth an unlimited number of computers. Why not just let me auth an unlimited number of computers and be done with it? Why have DRM in the first place? Simple. The RIAA (which isn't even the artists and doesn't represent the artists mind you) wouldn't let that fly. However they figure that 5 computers is a reasonable (originally only 3) estimate on the amount of computers that can play the song. If it were unlimited I could give the file to anyone to use, however with only 5 copies that can be used, the most I can ever give out is 4 (5 if I don't keep a copy). While this satisfies the RIAA, it doesn't satisfy me, or anyone else I know outside of these forums.

It's pointless. You know what they really could do? Remove the limit of computers only. Each song is tied to an iTMS account. Why, then can't I have the song on all of my computers. The RIAA probably wouldn't believe this, but normal users don't like to give their account info out to just anyone. This is an automatic limiter to the amount of people that can use the song to the people who own the account. Wow, great solution, huh? It's already done in a correct manner, so why not remove that restriction?

Besides doesn't the Apple DRM allow unlimited iPods? I mean, you can listen to music from your iPod when it's connected to iTunes so what's stopping a person from giving the song to all of his friends that own iPods? Unless iTunes checks the file from the iPod to see that it's not authorized this will work. Otherwise they can still listen to it on their iPods. Fairplay seems to flip flop all over the place on who can listen to what and how much.

[Windowlicker]

Sure its fair enough if you own an iPod or have a win box that has XP or Win2k on it. But if you don't then the music you just paid for is impossible to play. Sure you could rip a bunch of CD's then re import them, but we are talking a lot of work, not to mention a reduction in sound quality. Stealing is different from using. There are laws that are violated by the use of DRM but that issue is not being addressed. So why are we paying for something that is less usable but more expensive? iTunes has done some really great things, but there needs to be more concessions made to the end user to really get a full blown adoption. Opening the DRM to others would be a start or just the elimination of it completely. And getting rid of lossy compression.

I don't use these apps to steal/trade/distribute but I do use it to play it on my other none mac machines. 5 machines might be enough for most but I happen to have several more than that and not all can run iTunes. So what am I to do? Personally I am hoping to be able to purchase loss-less music soon that has no DRM..... what a CD is currently. I like the single song concept, much better than the album, so I really hope apple is listening, because I know the record companies are not.

your case is clearly an exception, but then again, not all of us have a CD player hehe ;D no but honestly, I can't even use itms yet because of my location. i've been leeching loads of music in the past years, but when my incomes started going up I started buying music. I think it's totally ok to buy a cd and rip it (I do it all the time), but in case you wanna use itms, I think you just have to make your decision: to buy or not to buy. it's the same thing as it is with the copy protected cds, except for the part that copy protection on cds sucks big time because it lowers the usability dramatically (for example not being able to play on car cd players).

I quite don't trust the 128kbps aac. it sounds good with electronic music, rock, pop etc, but how about classical? I listen to mozart at 160kbps and can't really tell much difference to the original. so I think apple should offer us 160 or even 192kbps aac. the lossless format isn't that good an idea, because the files are still huge and therefore take loads of bandwidth when people dl them. also not many people wanna wait for the songs to load (350mb for an album takes it's time even on a 2mb connection). most people wouldn't probably care if their songs were say 96kbps aac (it sounds pretty good btw;)

apple made it easy for customers to buy the music and listen to it. they even allow you to burn plenty of copies (and if 7 isn't enough, you can always rip a burned cd and burn that one). so if the drm really has to be cracked then well, I guess I cannot do anything about it, but I still think it's pretty useless.

[Fofer]

You know, I have been breaking the DRM on these songs losslessly (aside from the loss built into ITMS songs) since day one. This requires no software. I simply plug my Mac into my stereo, play the playlist I want to record and then record it using my stereo comonent CD recorder. I realize that it is real time and a very slow process, but this is just what we had to do with tapes.

Sorry to break it to you bud, but this process is far from lossless! It might sound "good enough" to your ears, but it by no means is an identical bit-for-bit copy of the original.

Not to mention having to do it in real time... song by song, to differentiate individual tracks. (or do you just record the album as one long track?)

Ouch. I'd rather buy the download *and* the physical CD than put up with that crap.

[fpnc]

...I quite don't trust the 128kbps aac. it sounds good with electronic music, rock, pop etc, but how about classical? I listen to mozart at 160kbps and can't really tell much difference to the original. so I think apple should offer us 160 or even 192kbps aac....

It has been suggested that the iTunes Music Store's 128kbps AAC files are actually somewhat better than you can encode yourself at the same bit rate. Apparently they use a more advanced encoder and/or a higher quality setting than is available via the iTunes Player. I'm fairly certain that this was true when iTMS was first introduced, but lately I've seen some reports that the iTunes encoder has been updated so perhaps there's not as much difference now as there once was.

In any case, I think 128kbps AAC sounds very good, I have to listen very carefully to hear any difference between the copy and the original (and doing multi-source comparisons requires carefully matched volume levels in a very quiet room -- a difficult and somewhat uncertain task). Even after a good setup I find it difficult to explain how the samples differ, I guess I'd say that there is a very slight change in the background separation between instruments. I've also had a few friends try to tell the difference and I'd have to say that those results were no better than random selection. When asked to select the encoded sample over multiple trials they just as often selected the copy as they did the original. They concluded that the original and copy were too close in quality to reliably select one as different from the other. I don't find that to be true in all cases, but I can be a fairly critical judge.

I'll admit, however, that when I encode from my original CDs I typically use 192kbps (as a kind of safety margin and considering that I may want to perform a batch re-encode at a future date). So, I guess I'd also like to see AAC files offered at higher bit rates.

[sdunlapa]

So wait....i can't even export it to an .aiff or mp3 file to use in FCP??

I think "Fair use" should include using it in your own home movies....

That's what I'm talkin 'bout. Goodbye iTUNES!!!! Hello again, my friend, Limewire!!

[dekator]

Boneheads....

I know these two guys... they have a screaming 2MB internet pipe and they spend ALL THEIR TIME downloading these DVD image files off the internet, re-ripping the image files into these DiVX encoded pieces of crap and burning discs. They have THOUSANDS of these things. They spend hours, and hours, and hours, every single night doing this illegal stuff... all for movies that were videotaped in a theater that look like crap.

Me? I prefer to go to Target and drop $15 on the real DVD. It saves me about eight hours and my copy is perfect. Plus, I'm not a thief.

If they were to rack up the time they spend on blank media (not to mention the media you toss out because of a bad burn) the cost of their $150 per month internet connection, the TIME they spend tracking all these downloads... the time they spend on encoding, trimming, and editing these clips, etc., etc., etc.... all for a single movie. Divide all that time up into the $15 the disc would cost you at the store and you can easily see that they are actually PAYING money out of their own pockets in order to get these low-quality rips for "free".

sibelius

Well, actually you can just start a download and let it run. Tracking downloads doesn't take more time than buying a DVD. Blank media, yes but they don't cost you a penny if you just leave the stuff on the computer. I'd personally not re-rip this stuff into DVDs as the quality is too poor. I do buy DVDs... but not each single one. It's really just a question of how much you download, a simple calculation.
Other than that, why do files have to be protected ? As you said yourself, protection can be circumvented. Ok, DRM makes it a little harder...
Still, downloaded songs should only have one string attached to them: "Please don't share illegally".
We used to recorded LPs on tape and no-one made a fuss... The reason the RI does now is simply greed. Boy, if I get to download music in decent quality I'm most certainly willing to pay. Still, 128kbps AACs just don't do it for me. Apple should really offer files in their lossless format.

[SiliconAddict]

I've looked, but I just don't see anything in any open-source license that says the licensor (i.e. Apple) must produce application software for a particular flavor of UNIX. If the people who created the software Apple is using wanted something specific for it, then they shouldn't have released their software as open-source. It's not an "open-source unless you happen to make some highly desirable software" license.

Is apple required to? Obviously not. But you'd think it would be common courtesy that they might throw a bone to the open source community.

[niar]

at least there is 100 votes positive..

[michaelal]

I don't usually run into the DRM problems, and I'm glad Apple gives us the ability to buy and download music. But I, for one, like the idea of stripping out the DRM without losing quality because, in theory, Apple could simple shut down the service one day and make all of the music I purchased useless once I buy a new computer. That's the same kind of thing as the problem of a DVD getting damaged - without the ability to copy the DVD, I'm out of luck and have to buy it again.

I do think DRM in technically evil, but I also think that consumers will drive keeping DRM from being too restrictive. People won't buy music they can't listen to in the manner they wish.

It would be nice if Apple put in their contract that, should they shutdown the service, we will be given a program to strip out the DRM. That would only be fair.

And what happens in the future when none of this stuff matters to Apple anymore. We will be left with songs we can't use, convert or play on our new 'xyz' machine. Copy protection is just plain wrong. A generation ago we found out that it caused nothing but problems for the software industry over the long run and we will find that to be true in the future for the music industry. Somehow we have been made to believe that $.99 a song is a bargain. What a crock. These are compressed songs with some loss and a whole album's worth (various artists) is going to cost almost the same price as a CD. Where is the bargain in all that. As usual the fat cats just keep getting richer trying find ways to strangle your hard earned money from you. Put a fair price on all music and leave it un-copy protected and MOST of the problems with all of this will disappear on there own. :rolleyes:

[spud]

broken already...

"iTunes 4.5: iTunes 4.5 uses a new authentication algorithm. However, not even 24 hours after I downloaded it, and that includes a little sleep and lots of uni time, I've broken it. Hah. Anyhow, libopendaap 0.2.0 and tunesbrowser 0.1.4 are now available."

go find the link yourselves...

this is in reference to the LAN music sharing feature. apple has it so only itunes as client can access music on itunes as server. for 4.1, there were a slew of programs that got around this, so linux users (among others) could access this feature. in 4.5 they changed the authentication algorithm for this feature, and it was broken by this guy

[ethernet76]

Yep... this is a must-do for Apple. Apple needs to keep appearances of protecting the DRM - otherwise, the labels aren't going to like it.

arn

So what exactly is it the music industry isn't going to like?

The copies bought off of iTunes are generally lower quality than what you would find when someones rips off a CD. Most people don't trade ACC files, I can't remember once when I've downloaded one. Also, when made my ACC files available to others no one has downloaded them.

I find the DRM extremely restrictive and have stripped it from all my songs and won't upgrade my computer until the new fairplay comes out.

So here is what I get with a 9.95 album. More restrictions, no jewel case or alvum art, and lower quality medium. Having to authorize is real convienient when you don't have an internet connection and all you want to is just play a song off of my iPod. Also,

I use more than three computers and I don't think it's fair that I am only allowed to listen to my music when the record companies feel I should.

I use to be all about iTMS, but it's not listener friendly.

Call me a theif, but I do more to support music than most anyone else here does. I go to shows. I buy CDs from up and coming bands that rely on their homemade copies to get started. I buy merchandise from bands. All of these are almost pure profit for the band members. As downhill battle pointed out, artists get 11 cents of every song you buy. Eleven cents. That's 11 percent of something they created. It's like buying a painting, but the artist only getting 11 percent because well someone had to frame it, put it in a gallery, buy it. They're not gouging they're just taking their "fair share." Please, Apple makes 35 cents per song.

[applebum]

Sorry to break it to you bud, but this process is far from lossless! It might sound "good enough" to your ears, but it by no means is an identical bit-for-bit copy of the original.



Ok - how's that? I know if you are using an analog connection there will be some loss along the line, but that is minimal. If I record straight from a cd to another cd on my stereo, there is no compression. I may change some equalizer settings and change the sound of the original, but I am not losing much from what is there. Certainly much less lossy than ripping to mp3 and then re-importing.

Beyond that, the point primarily is that there are ways to continue using the music - even if Apple were to go out of business. It may not be ideal, but it is still an option

[applebum]

And what happens in the future when none of this stuff matters to Apple anymore. We will be left with songs we can't use, convert or play on our new 'xyz' machine.
What happened to tape when CD's became popular? I had a bunch of tapes and wound up buying many of them again on CD. This is what happens when a new media takes over. Beyond that, you are simply being an alarmist. DRM will be broken every time. The difference is that when Apple stops doing ITMS, they won't put out new software that breaks the DRM breaking software.

Somehow we have been made to believe that $.99 a song is a bargain. What a crock.

Actually this is called demand. The fact that 70 MILLION songs have been downloaded would suggest that there are a whole lot of people that think that .99 is fair.

These are compressed songs with some loss and a whole album's worth (various artists) is going to cost almost the same price as a CD. Where is the bargain in all that.

Apparently this whole bunch of people feel that there are benefits to not buying a whole album when you only want 2 songs, not having to drive to the store, to not having another CD that just takes up room, etc. etc.

As usual the fat cats just keep getting richer trying find ways to strangle your hard earned money from you. Put a fair price on all music and leave it un-copy protected and MOST of the problems with all of this will disappear on there own.

Yeah um, no one strangled my hard earned cash from my warm alive hands. I gave it up willingly. I have determined that the songs I buy from ITMS have a fair price - for me. I have determined that the copy protection isn't a problem - for me. I will continue to buy as long as I feel this way. It's not like the ITMS has gotten rid of brick and mortar stores - if you feel that the ITMS sells music that is not fairly priced or is not a bargain, then keep going to the real stores and buy the actual cd. Each to his own.

[corvus]

broken already...

"iTunes 4.5: iTunes 4.5 uses a new authentication algorithm. However, not even 24 hours after I downloaded it, and that includes a little sleep and lots of uni time, I've broken it. Hah. Anyhow, libopendaap 0.2.0 and tunesbrowser 0.1.4 are now available."

go find the link yourselves...

This is just breaking the sharing, not the decoding.

However, it's still ethically wrong. People need to be paid for their work. These types of programs are for stealing from Apple.

[Steve M]

Please, Apple makes 35 cents per song.

They most certainly do not "make" 35 cents per song. Most of that goes into keeping the iTunes Music Store running. Remember, the iTunes Music Store exists primarily to sell iPods. The small profit Apple made last quarter was pretty much unexpected.

[kryten2000]

I think is fantastic that Apple is going after these programs. They do need to go away. Especially because of the fact that there is a built-in DRM-stripping tool right inside iTunes...just burn an audio cd...

But aren't you losing quality when doing this on an already quite lossy compression. Too bad you cant download tunes from the store in the new apple lossless codec

[halen]

I think it is a crock that you own the song but it does not migrate into the pro apps. We pay to own and burn the song, but it does not integrate with all the apple apps. The only way to get it uncompressed is to burn it to CD and then copy it back onto the HD. If I purchase a song I should be able to add it to a Final Cut project or slide show. Apple has dropped the ball on this revision.
Crappy

[iMan]

Depends. I have a few friends that have over 18,000 songs, one with 28,000 I asked him to play something from Turkey 2 weeks ago. Don't aks. :eek: ) on their system that they have downloaded, swapped with friends, ripped from friends CD's, etc, etc. Hmmm let me think about that a second. New car.....lots of music....new car....lots of music. hard decision. :p ;) Is it right? I'm not making that call. But is it worth their time. I'd say yes.

So the choice is stealing the music or stealing the car..hmm?? ;)

[iMan]

I think it is a crock that you own the song but it does not migrate into the pro apps. We pay to own and burn the song, but it does not integrate with all the apple apps. The only way to get it uncompressed is to burn it to CD and then copy it back onto the HD. If I purchase a song I should be able to add it to a Final Cut project or slide show. Apple has dropped the ball on this revision.
Crappy

A Pro app is definitely another thing than only for homeuse. If you need to use a song for your homeproject then just rerip it. You loose a bit of quality, but it still beats the old VHS no? ;)

[Spades]

So the pro apps cannot use protected files? It might be useful to figure out which apps can use the protected files and which ones can't. I think it's unacceptable if there's any application that can't use the file, but it'll be a handy list anyways. So far we have:

iMovie works. (although my problem still isn't fixed)
Roxio doesn't.

And the pro apps don't work?

I think it is a crock that you own the song but it does not migrate into the pro apps. We pay to own and burn the song, but it does not integrate with all the apple apps. The only way to get it uncompressed is to burn it to CD and then copy it back onto the HD. If I purchase a song I should be able to add it to a Final Cut project or slide show. Apple has dropped the ball on this revision.
Crappy

[ifjake]

i don't get it. if you want to be able to burn more copies than you really need then just don't use iTunes. buy the CD. if you want free music turn on the radio. i just don't get this opposition to DRM. honestly. it's too easy for people to just pass compressed audio around like back during napster and now kazaa for them to not put some kind of protection on it. i don't get it how whenever something is turned into digital it's like it's just 0s and 1s to people. this is people's livelihood. have some respect and integrity.

[krasi82]

I just heard the other day that a college student broke the DMA in iTunes 4.5. He broke it 24 hours after it was realeased. Apple engineers better think of something quick to patch it cause they will be a new fairplay out soon with the update for iTunes 4.5. I heard this on The Screen Savers on Tech TV. ;)

[form]

There's no stopping progress. DRM is just an early step. And those lawsuits against children who have shared music "illegally." If these things can be looked at in some angle other than a gradual, pressing and ruthless crack-down on one of our freedoms by corporations, then, by all means....go ahead and believe whatever.

The lawsuits would be the equivalent of a person squashing ants that are invading the edge of their yard, because there happens to be a piece of fruit lying on it.

The current state of the DRM movement is like that weak, delayed-effect bug spray, or ant bait, the stuff like anyone can buy that doesn't really work well.

The next stage, involving unwanted deletion of illegal files, full-time tracking of transfers, or perhaps even viruses designed to permanently ruin mp3s (that are not innoculated by the special "key codes" found only in purchased music files) would be like them calling pest control and using the high-grade stuff that eradicates.

Bottom line is, the fruit is there (mp3s, free sharing), the major recording companies' income wasn't in any way crippled before, and whatever happens next is just icing on the cake.

Gonna sue more ants and cut off their legs as penalty for taking some of that fruit? Suuurrre. Why not? Noone's gonna do anything about it but complain once in a while, and that's like throwing pebbles at a fully armored tank.

As for my personal predictions of gradual strangleholds: What is going to stop them, and what incentive do they have to further tighten their grip, as opposed to incentive not to do so? Think of what they gain the most from, and think of what they claim they aren't getting enough of, thanks to free sharing. What is their interest, their focus, their goal? What would help them best accomplish that goal? Answer these questions yourself; the answers will be affected by your levels of trust, morality, and business sense.

[travishill]

I just heard the other day that a college student broke the DMA in iTunes 4.5. He broke it 24 hours after it was realeased. Apple engineers better think of something quick to patch it cause they will be a new fairplay out soon with the update for iTunes 4.5. I heard this on The Screen Savers on Tech TV. ;)

For the 3rd time in this SAME thread...

The new Fairplay DRM has NOT been broken. It is just the sharing protocol changes that were figure out in 24 hours.

[MictXP]

Well, I've skipped most of the posts. 105 posts are a lot of posts to read, and you know, time is money, money is time, and...uh...why waste moneys on reading about itunes when I can spend moneys on iTunes?? :D

I guess the thing I'm interested in is the actual agreement between Apple and the RIAA. I'm guessing that Apple didn't put more restrictions on the AAC files then they had to. This is just a guess, so who knows.

So the thing I think about is the restriction of using music in the Pro apps. And this makes sense to me, after thinking about it. If you are making a Pro-level DVD (read: different than a home user who happens to have the $1000 software to use as a glorified iMovie), then you are using it in Pro applications -- making Pro DVDs. Then you, legally, are required to pay royalties for the music you use. This is much, much different than paying 99 cents for a song. Steve Jobs made this distinction when he introduced Garageband -- he called it an app to produce royalty free music.

This makes sense to me -- Pro level users should not have the illusion of legality when using iTMS files in Final Cut Pro. If that cloak of legality were there, the user could get in serious trouble a few weeks or months after the release of their files.

Now the problem -- there are people who use the pro level apps to create home projects. Legally. You can imagine someone who does the Pro level stuff as a job, and creates little projects on the side. Also College Students who get the software really cheap to make little projects. Unfortunately, it does hurt these two groups of people. But I think the RIAA would weigh the benefits of cutting Pro support over the costs of it.

Anyway, that's just what I was thinking. I haven't read all the rest of it, so this might have been posted elsewhere.

[BlueDjinn]

For the record, I just posted the following on the Apple Support Board:

(let's see if they leave it up there or if they censor it):

http://discussions.info.apple.com/webx?14@203.yDhOa3y6laU.9@.68927d3f

Topic: iTMS Files Incompatible w/Toast Titanium!
Original Message ( Posted Apr 30, 04 2:50 pm )

Either QuickTime 6.5.1 or iTunes 4.5 has broken Toast Titanium 6.0.5 (latest version).

You can no longer use Toast to play .m4p (DRM'd AAC) files--there's only silence.

You also cannot use it to burn audio CDs from iTMS songs--the CD burns, but again, is filled up with silence.

This is a legitimate problem for anyone who wants to use Toast for burning their CDs instead of iTunes--which includes anyone with an unsupported external CD burner, as well as anyone who wants to create Advanced Audio or Mixed Mode CDs (which iTunes can't do).

This is unacceptable and should be acknowledged *and rectified* as quickly as possible, by Apple and/or Roxio.

This same topic was already started over on the Roxio support board:

http://boards.support.roxio.com/roxio/board/message?board.id=0000020&message.id=6226

[ethernet76]

They most certainly do not "make" 35 cents per song. Most of that goes into keeping the iTunes Music Store running. Remember, the iTunes Music Store exists primarily to sell iPods. The small profit Apple made last quarter was pretty much unexpected.

I do remember this, and it's ****e. Apple is compensated 35 cents for every download, while artists only get 11.

That's like saying you think Bestbuy should make three times more than the artist for putting the CD on the shelve.

The iTMS can blow me because a) it's a jack b) contrary to their earlier claims it's still unfair to the artists c) Apple fans are just gobbling it up because they're stupid.

It's great for one song downloads, the only advantage. Otherwise, save your money go to a store. I've bought off of the iTMS, but in hindsight I should have just gone down to Coconuts and bought it used, or bought it off CDnow.

Honestly I'm a big Apple fan, I think my four macs, including my Nov. 15" PB shows this. But screwing an artist either way whether it is from Apple or Best Buy isn't right.

[dontmatter]

So what exactly is it the music industry isn't going to like?

The copies bought off of iTunes are generally lower quality than what you would find when someones rips off a CD. Most people don't trade ACC files, I can't remember once when I've downloaded one. Also, when made my ACC files available to others no one has downloaded them.

I find the DRM extremely restrictive and have stripped it from all my songs and won't upgrade my computer until the new fairplay comes out.

So here is what I get with a 9.95 album. More restrictions, no jewel case or alvum art, and lower quality medium. Having to authorize is real convienient when you don't have an internet connection and all you want to is just play a song off of my iPod. Also,

I use more than three computers and I don't think it's fair that I am only allowed to listen to my music when the record companies feel I should.

I use to be all about iTMS, but it's not listener friendly.

Call me a theif, but I do more to support music than most anyone else here does. I go to shows. I buy CDs from up and coming bands that rely on their homemade copies to get started. I buy merchandise from bands. All of these are almost pure profit for the band members. As downhill battle pointed out, artists get 11 cents of every song you buy. Eleven cents. That's 11 percent of something they created. It's like buying a painting, but the artist only getting 11 percent because well someone had to frame it, put it in a gallery, buy it. They're not gouging they're just taking their "fair share." Please, Apple makes 35 cents per song.

actually, my friend, your average artist selling something in a gallery DOESN'T get the majority of the money...most of it does go to the people framing it, putting it in the gallery, buying catering for gallery showings, etc. All in all, you probably make more than 11%, but not a hell of a lot.

It's a tough world for the artist, because no matter what the route, advertizing and distribution are often more important and more expensive than anything having to do with the music directly (even on indie labels...it might be sending CD's out to reviewers, and that's pretty cheap, but sales are much lower, also).

[zync]

actually, my friend, your average artist selling something in a gallery DOESN'T get the majority of the money...most of it does go to the people framing it, putting it in the gallery, buying catering for gallery showings, etc. All in all, you probably make more than 11%, but not a hell of a lot.

It's a tough world for the artist, because no matter what the route, advertizing and distribution are often more important and more expensive than anything having to do with the music directly (even on indie labels...it might be sending CD's out to reviewers, and that's pretty cheap, but sales are much lower, also).

Actually I've never been to, or had work in, a gallery where someone other than the artist frames their work. The topic of framing is left to the artist, the gallery only decides where it will hang. Many times it is also the job of the artist to hang the piece unless it's a simple frame. Installations are almost always done by the artist and the artist alone.

Many times the gallery will charge a fee, which the artist will usually append to the work's price, or charge nothing and leave pricing completely to the artist. Some galleries don't sell anything and so there is no decision in pricing. This may be different from where you live but AFAIK these are standard practices across both professional and student galleries.

[autrefois]

OK. Well, I'm glad that I at least made sense :) Anyway no, I don't really think that 99 cents should by me unlimited copies of anything,

Thank you for admitting that. And just to make sure it's clear, I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just arguing the point. :)

however if I had a network of 6 computers in my house I don't want to have to auth/de-auth the 5/6 computer just so I can stream a song that I own! No, I don't own the song itself, that's obvious, but I own the right to listen to the song.

You own the right to have the song on 5 computers. If you own six computers at home and really want access to the song on all six computers, then I guess you could burn the downloaded song on a CD, put it in the CD drive of the other computer, and import it. (If you have 6 computers at home, I don't think buying blank CDs would be a problem! :))

Techinically it's wrong for me to let anyone else hear it if you want to go that far with it.
I highly doubt there's any law anywhere saying other people can't hear the music you have, assuming you mean friends just listening while they're at your place and not some sort of public event you've organized. It's giving people illegal copies of that music which is the main problem.

I just don't think it's right to have these freedoms with the CDs and not be able to have the same freedoms with my AACs. That doesn't make sense.

I agree, you shouldn't be able to make unlimited copies of CDs, but that's the nature of the technology.

Compare CDs to books--right or wrong, you can make zillions of copies of a paper book. With a computer, you can scan the book in and distribute zillions of copies, just like you can import a CD and distribute zillions of copies.

E-books, like AAC files, are generally copy-protected, preventing you from making tons of copies. I admit I am not familiar with the details of E-books licenses and have never bought an E-book, but I think the analogy is more or less valid.

Just because you *can* make unlimited copies of a book or an album on a certain medium doesn't mean it's legal or "right" to do.

yes we can expect to do whatever we dang well please because we paid for the license, just as you do with CDs.

Which license are you talking about? I agreed to one that only allows me to have the song on 5 different computers. Well, technically, I first agreed to a license allowing me to have my song on only 3 computers. For no additional charge, the 300+ songs I had already downloaded from the iTunes music store before I installed iTunes 4.5 now can be put on 5 computers.

And since we're on the topic of licensing, since I don't own the music itself, why can't I get a new CD at cost when I accidently scratch one?
I guess you have a point here. I can't come up with a valid argument, other than the fact that they're the ones that own the rights, so they can decide what they want to and what they don't want to do.

[greg75]

Fair Use sucks. Go Apple!!

[kindall]

That's like saying you think Bestbuy should make three times more than the artist for putting the CD on the shelve.

Well, yes, they should, because the retailer should make whatever they can make, regardless of whatever the artist is making. That's their gig: to make money selling stuff. What the artist makes is entirely between the artist and the record company. If artists want to make more than 11 cents per song, they should stop signing contracts that only give them 11 cents a song.

The artists made their bed; now they must lie in it. I lose no sleep over the amount they are making. They signed a contract that said "Yes, 11 cents a song is fine by me," fully aware that other people would be making the other 88 cents. Why would anyone do such a thing? Well, because they want to be rock stars more than they want more money. There are probably other reasons.

If an artist feels they are not getting what their contract promises, they can sue the label. Some have done so successfully.

[Blue Moon]

I just deleted my copy of fairplay, I never used it and I felt bad for even having it, I own stock in Apple I shouldn't be working against their interests.

[SLAPSHOTW]

Hey all,
Just so you know, a new version of getTunes is out, only compatible with iTunes 4.5 (what a surprise!). I know the DRM hasn't cracked, and we already had a program in C for this, but realistically, this is going to affect a hell of a lot more people...

-Matt
matthew at nyu dot edu (obviously format this correctly to e-mail me)

[knockknock]

So what happens now that ...
a)let's say your computer crashes really bad and somehow you manage to take your songs out using your other/ friends computer
b)you HAVE to use your restore discs
c) you are buying a new mac in a near future -because you will

In all of these cases I think you will not be able to use YOUR music (rightfully purchased)and finish loosing your money .Yes you can backup on a cd but can you reimport? will that playlist play on your new computer?
Ok I'm not that totally against DRMAwhat im saying is it would be nice if the ITMS would remenber what you bought and let you get it back
i.e. login to ITMS +sincking with your ipod =getting back your songs because they are already there and you already paid for them.
Or ITMS recognizing your account and letting you reimport your copy protected songs on the new /reformated computer :confused:

They are not going to do this because the RIAA will loose mone

[Spades]

The second thing is what you can already do. This is what authorizing a computer is for; allowing that computer to play the files you downloaded. If you don't want to lose your music, backup the files to a CD. I think if you burn a Data CD that it will just copy the files, but I'm not sure. I have .Mac, so I use Backup. You can copy the files from you backup onto the new computer, authorize it, and they'll work.

Still, it would be nice if you could redownload files you already purchased. I do have a handful of songs that I purchase but don't have the original files for. I've got them all converted to aif files though, and there's only 10 of them. I did this when iTMS first opened and was borrowing an iBook. I didn't think I'd end up owning my own Powerbook shortly afterwards. :D

I'm not worried about them, but it would be nice to download the originals again...

Ok I'm not that totally against DRMAwhat im saying is it would be nice if the ITMS would remenber what you bought and let you get it back
i.e. login to ITMS +sincking with your ipod =getting back your songs because they are already there and you already paid for them.
Or ITMS recognizing your account and letting you reimport your copy protected songs on the new /reformated computer :confused:

[RogerQ]

I do remember this, and it's ****e. Apple is compensated 35 cents for every download, while artists only get 11.

That's like saying you think Bestbuy should make three times more than the artist for putting the CD on the shelve.

But screwing an artist either way whether it is from Apple or Best Buy isn't right.

I have no love for the record companies, as I am an independent musician. But let's run the #s.

100% is standard retail markup. That means that if a CD single were to sell for $1, BestBuy would get $.50 and whoever sold it to BestBuy would get $.50 (yes, BestBuy specifically doesn't mark CDs up 100%--they use them as loss leaders to get kids into the stores-- bear with me). In that case, the store and the artist would make the same amount--if the artist sold directly to the store. But of course, artists don't.

An artist with his/her own label will likely go through a distributor, who would also like to make 100% markup. Now the artist gets $.25 per song and BestBuy makes twice that--with no record company screwing involved. Obviously, the record company wants a cut, say 50/50. That puts the artist @ 12.5¢ a song. Sounds a lot like 11...

People seem to think Apple can change the artists' deals with the record companies. They can't. Or that anyone who sells records is screwing the artists. They aren't.

"Signed" artists gave the exclusive right to sell their recordings to their record companies. Until those contracts expire (usually after a fixed # of albums), artists can't sell any music without the record company being involved. So Apple CAN'T cut a fairer deal with the artists if they wanted--the record companies own it all.

Apple selling songs through this system doesn't screw the artists--they were screwed the moment they signed their contract. Rather, the artists' ONLY HOPE is to sell mega units so that they'll have better leverage when they renegotiate. That's why every sale HELPS the artist (often helping to pay back $$ they owe to the record company).

Go ahead, ask a major label artist if they'd rather sell more records or less. They'll say more.

BTW--This is why pirating screws the artist more than the record companies. Record companies won't invest more $$$ in acts they can't recoup from. So many artists will be stuck owing another album to the label, but the label won't spend the $$$ to make it happen (or worse, demand endless changes on the artist's dime). That leaves the artist trapped in limbo, unable to release ANYTHING until they sue their way out of their contract.

If you really want artists to make more $$$, just send them a check directly.

[ethernet76]

Well, yes, they should, because the retailer should make whatever they can make, regardless of whatever the artist is making. That's their gig: to make money selling stuff. What the artist makes is entirely between the artist and the record company. If artists want to make more than 11 cents per song, they should stop signing contracts that only give them 11 cents a song.

The artists made their bed; now they must lie in it. I lose no sleep over the amount they are making. They signed a contract that said "Yes, 11 cents a song is fine by me," fully aware that other people would be making the other 88 cents. Why would anyone do such a thing? Well, because they want to be rock stars more than they want more money. There are probably other reasons.

If an artist feels they are not getting what their contract promises, they can sue the label. Some have done so successfully.

Unfortunately you economics is wrong. There are anti-trust laws that prevent organizations (such as those that sell CDs) from setting a price. Therefore it would be illegal for Best Buy to meet with Circuit City or Mediaplay and say, "OK, everyone CDs, 24 dollars."

This model leaves competition in it's wake and lower prices for the consumer.

[ethernet76]

I have no love for the record companies, as I am an independent musician. But let's run the #s.

100% is standard retail markup. That means that if a CD single were to sell for $1, BestBuy would get $.50 and whoever sold it to BestBuy would get $.50 (yes, BestBuy specifically doesn't mark CDs up 100%--they use them as loss leaders to get kids into the stores-- bear with me). In that case, the store and the artist would make the same amount--if the artist sold directly to the store. But of course, artists don't.

An artist with his/her own label will likely go through a distributor, who would also like to make 100% markup. Now the artist gets $.25 per song and BestBuy makes twice that--with no record company screwing involved. Obviously, the record company wants a cut, say 50/50. That puts the artist @ 12.5¢ a song. Sounds a lot like 11...

People seem to think Apple can change the artists' deals with the record companies. They can't. Or that anyone who sells records is screwing the artists. They aren't.

"Signed" artists gave the exclusive right to sell their recordings to their record companies. Until those contracts expire (usually after a fixed # of albums), artists can't sell any music without the record company being involved. So Apple CAN'T cut a fairer deal with the artists if they wanted--the record companies own it all.

Apple selling songs through this system doesn't screw the artists--they were screwed the moment they signed their contract. Rather, the artists' ONLY HOPE is to sell mega units so that they'll have better leverage when they renegotiate. That's why every sale HELPS the artist (often helping to pay back $$ they owe to the record company).

Go ahead, ask a major label artist if they'd rather sell more records or less. They'll say more.

BTW--This is why pirating screws the artist more than the record companies. Record companies won't invest more $$$ in acts they can't recoup from. So many artists will be stuck owing another album to the label, but the label won't spend the $$$ to make it happen (or worse, demand endless changes on the artist's dime). That leaves the artist trapped in limbo, unable to release ANYTHING until they sue their way out of their contract.

If you really want artists to make more $$$, just send them a check directly.

Please post links as to where you got your numbers, because to me the seem inherently flawed.

Whlie a majoritiy of artists make only 11 cents per song there are a lot more out who have fair contracts with companies and make a large deal more. Yet these companies are not gong under, and they are still able to sign new artists and subsidize potential artists they believe might be something the people want.

[zync]

Thank you for admitting that. And just to make sure it's clear, I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just arguing the point. :)



You own the right to have the song on 5 computers. If you own six computers at home and really want access to the song on all six computers, then I guess you could burn the downloaded song on a CD, put it in the CD drive of the other computer, and import it. (If you have 6 computers at home, I don't think buying blank CDs would be a problem! :))


I highly doubt there's any law anywhere saying other people can't hear the music you have, assuming you mean friends just listening while they're at your place and not some sort of public event you've organized. It's giving people illegal copies of that music which is the main problem.



I agree, you shouldn't be able to make unlimited copies of CDs, but that's the nature of the technology.

Compare CDs to books--right or wrong, you can make zillions of copies of a paper book. With a computer, you can scan the book in and distribute zillions of copies, just like you can import a CD and distribute zillions of copies.

E-books, like AAC files, are generally copy-protected, preventing you from making tons of copies. I admit I am not familiar with the details of E-books licenses and have never bought an E-book, but I think the analogy is more or less valid.

Just because you *can* make unlimited copies of a book or an album on a certain medium doesn't mean it's legal or "right" to do.



Which license are you talking about? I agreed to one that only allows me to have the song on 5 different computers. Well, technically, I first agreed to a license allowing me to have my song on only 3 computers. For no additional charge, the 300+ songs I had already downloaded from the iTunes music store before I installed iTunes 4.5 now can be put on 5 computers.


I guess you have a point here. I can't come up with a valid argument, other than the fact that they're the ones that own the rights, so they can decide what they want to and what they don't want to do.

Realize that not all of the following points here are directed to you and I'm not attacking you...we have an accord on this and a healthy discussion without anger, that's good :)

Most of this is fair. I don't think you shouldn't be able to make millions of copies of CDs, as long as you keep them to yourself. (beware the tangent) Now, I don't think illegal downloading is right and I don't try to justify it completely, but I think that in any case if the music a person downloads is such that they wouldn't buy it in the first place, why does it even matter? Sure the argument can be made that if you don't pay for it you shouldn't be able to use it, but the alternative in this case would be to never listen to it. While many people download songs that they don't like all that much and rarely listen to anyway, those artists should be happy that people are downloading their music who aren't fans because this may be what it takes to make people a fan. (bye bye tangent)

My major point wasn't that it's right to make millions of copies of a song. My point is that you can with a CD. Now, if I'm also buying a copy of the song (which is what a CD is) why can't I enjoy the same freedoms I do with a CD regardless of whether or not they're ethical? What's unethical in this case is that I'm supposed to be buying something similar to a CD (except the quality is lower which is also a major factor in this argument) yet I get treated like I didn't buy anything even similar to a CD at all. Look at it this way. I pay 10-13 dollars for a CD, that I can encode in any format I wish mind you. This makes a CD versatile. If by spending 10 on an iTMS album I get only 5 copies max at a single bit rate AND format. Is it worth it? I'm practically paying the same price for different things and the one that's more restrictive actually costs more. How you say? Well the CD has to be shipped, packaged, stamped, printed, etc. This probably brings the cost of the CD, in iTMS terms, to about 6-8 dollars. In short I'm paying more for less. What consumer model does this fit into?

Also, the 6 was an arbitrary number. I'm planning on having more one day when I have a studio, and I'm not going to burn like 15 CDs so that I can hear one song on any of those computers. I suppose I could burn one and take it to each but that's pointless, besides the conversion to CD would be even more lossy and I'm a strict audiophile. I could use my iPod but what if I don't feel like it? I could be tired of the earbuds (without a nice sound system around, though doubtful in my studio :)) or want to be able to use iTunes' interface. I could also not have OTG playlists even though I bought my iPod just a few months before the 3G came out!!!! :mad: And everyone knows not having playlists when you're trying to work is a pain in the ass.

The basic point is this: If I could just as well buy it in the store and share it to everyone, what's the point of DRM!? Why do I get punished for buying a copy offline? Isn't the fact that it's lossy already punishment?

If I wanted to I could legally (well except for the multiple copying rules but bear with me (unless you go with the Supreme Court majority opinion you found)) give 100 people a copy of one of my CDs if I set up terms detailing that only 1 copy can be in use at a time. Is this a stupid example, probably; but does it prove my point, yes. If I'm the only person with my name registered in iTunes (which holds my account/cc info mind you!) doesn't that let them know I'm the person playing the damn file, or that I own the computer it's playing on!? In such a case what does it matter if I have the file on 50 computers? It's entirely possible that I would and well, the file could exist on all 50 computers and I could auth/de-auth as I sat at each one but who wants to go through the monotony of doing so! The point is cut out the middle man and let me have the same rights to my file as I do to my CD!

[SLAPSHOTW]

To zync (and others),

I understand your points completely, and, yes, they make sense. My question, then, is why use the iTunes Music Store. There's no reason for you to use it. It's better for people like myself-- I'm an audiophile myself (studying record production), but for $0.99, if I just want to hear one song, it's not that big a deal to me. I only need to be able to play the songs on 3 computers, so it works out. If I had 4 (or now 6) computers, I'd buy the CDs, as this is better for me.

Basically, what I'm saying is, if it's not for you, why use it? It obviously suits other people well.

-Matt

[zync]

To zync (and others),

I understand your points completely, and, yes, they make sense. My question, then, is why use the iTunes Music Store. There's no reason for you to use it. It's better for people like myself-- I'm an audiophile myself (studying record production), but for $0.99, if I just want to hear one song, it's not that big a deal to me. I only need to be able to play the songs on 3 computers, so it works out. If I had 4 (or now 6) computers, I'd buy the CDs, as this is better for me.

Basically, what I'm saying is, if it's not for you, why use it? It obviously suits other people well.

-Matt

I've already said that it's not useful for me and so I don't use it. My point, however, was that their goal is to curtail illegal downloading, but when their solution is restrictive less people wish to use it. I've bought one song because I wanted a pre-release copy that didn't sound like crap ripped from the radio. Other than that I take their free stuff and I'm happy. I was just pointing out how the system is, to me, useless.

I think it's a great system for people who can live under the restrictions and only need one song or so from an album. But I really don't see the need for anyone to buy the entire album from iTunes instead of just getting it at the store. While I don't have 6 computers now I will in the future and thus the files will obviously be less effective to me. I also wonder why there's a difference between getting the song on CD and getting it via iTMS.

[ethernet76]

To zync (and others),

I understand your points completely, and, yes, they make sense. My question, then, is why use the iTunes Music Store. There's no reason for you to use it. It's better for people like myself-- I'm an audiophile myself (studying record production), but for $0.99, if I just want to hear one song, it's not that big a deal to me. I only need to be able to play the songs on 3 computers, so it works out. If I had 4 (or now 6) computers, I'd buy the CDs, as this is better for me.

Basically, what I'm saying is, if it's not for you, why use it? It obviously suits other people well.

-Matt

An audiophile using lossy compression? Pfft. I assume you connect your iPod to Seinhieser 580s or 600s using a headphone amp too.

[ethernet76]

If I wanted to I could legally (well except for the multiple copying rules but bear with me (unless you go with the Supreme Court majority opinion you found)) give 100 people a copy of one of my CDs if I set up terms detailing that only 1 copy can be in use at a time. Is this a stupid example, probably; but does it prove my point, yes. If I'm the only person with my name registered in iTunes (which holds my account/cc info mind you!) doesn't that let them know I'm the person playing the damn file, or that I own the computer it's playing on!? In such a case what does it matter if I have the file on 50 computers? It's entirely possible that I would and well, the file could exist on all 50 computers and I could auth/de-auth as I sat at each one but who wants to go through the monotony of doing so! The point is cut out the middle man and let me have the same rights to my file as I do to my CD!

This is incorrect. The law states that you may reasonably back up your medium. 100 copies is not reasonable, and when you give those CDs to your friends they are no longer yours. Which moves you into piracy.

Furthermore, the supreme court could go either way. They're not to bright when it comes to computer stuff(Look at them they're all 90).

[SLAPSHOTW]

An audiophile using lossy compression? Pfft. I assume you connect your iPod to Seinhieser 580s or 600s using a headphone amp too.


Haha, well, for the occasional song I don't mind. I wouldn't use it for an album, but if I just need to hear a song, I don't mind. I also used to not mind more while I was still using the included headphones (welcome to college life lack of funds...). I use e3c's now, and the differences are just as apparent as they are on my monitors.

Also, I know this may not be the venue for this, but while I have the attention of audiophiles, anyone see the new digi ICON? WOW! Only question I have is if there'll be a patch bay or something to use outboard stuff, or if we can only use plugins.

[titaniumducky]

when you give those CDs to your friends they are no longer yours. Which moves you into piracy.

Actually, it's completely legal to distribute your songs to friends and known people only. It only becomes piracy when you're no longer giving it to people whom you know well - that is why P2P is illegal. Theoretically, if you built a P2P network that stretched only between 5 (or 3 or whatever number) houses, everyone in each house was known to you well, no one else could access this network, and you were sharing songs, it would be 100% legal.

[sibelius]

I think it is a crock that you own the song but it does not migrate into the pro apps. We pay to own and burn the song, but it does not integrate with all the apple apps. The only way to get it uncompressed is to burn it to CD and then copy it back onto the HD. If I purchase a song I should be able to add it to a Final Cut project or slide show. Apple has dropped the ball on this revision.
Crappy

Actually, all you're purchasing are the rights to listen to the song in the presented media. Just because you pay to see a new movie in the theater doesn't give you the rights to view that movie for free when the DVD is released. That may be a poor example, but I think it's good enough.

Apple has not only NOT deopped the ball, they have taken the ball and ran with it. You see, just because you purchased the rights to listen to the song (in the format you purchased it) doesn't give you the rights to use that song in a video production. Legally you don't really even have the 'right' to use it in a video production for personal purposes... even though I doubt anyone technically cares if you do, or don't. Purchasing an AAC file from iTunes doesn't mean you own the song... just the ability to listen to and enjoy that song in the manner clearly published in the agreement.

sibelius

[iMan]

Actually, it's completely legal to distribute your songs to friends and known people only. It only becomes piracy when you're no longer giving it to people whom you know well - that is why P2P is illegal. Theoretically, if you built a P2P network that stretched only between 5 (or 3 or whatever number) houses, everyone in each house was known to you well, no one else could access this network, and you were sharing songs, it would be 100% legal.

If this is completely legal (as opposed to accepted practice as it was with audiotapes) I would like to see the legalese for it. I mean it would be interesting to see how they define the terms for "people you know well" :D

btw: iTunes do let you share your tunes completely legally via rendezvous (and it works absolutely beautifully in our office for instance).

Why bother with this nitpicking. Buy the songs you want - it's only a buck/ea anyway. Are you guys really that cheap?

[sibelius]

...I just don't think it's right to have these freedoms with the CDs and not be able to have the same freedoms with my AACs. That doesn't make sense.

So as you can see, five copies may not be enough. Eventually I will have a studio with more than five computers and so this will become a problem. And yes we can expect to do whatever we dang well please because we paid for the license, just as you do with CDs. With CDs I can have as many copies as I can hold on a drive, why can't I with AAC.

And since we're on the topic of licensing, since I don't own the music itself, why can't I get a new CD at cost when I accidently scratch one? DVDs aren't like this either. DVDs can easily be messed up, but if I do the license doesn't get me squat. Why can't I turn in my tapes and get CDs at cost? I own the license don't I. My dad has some Atrac tapes so why can't he use his "license" to get a CD at cost? The point is, if they're going to argue this "licensing" stuff then they should stick by the other aspects of it.


First off, when you purchase something (like music, movies, etc.) you are purchasing the rights to listen to/view that piece in the FORM you purchased it. You have no other rights to that unless they are GIVEN to you. I think Apple has been very good at getting some pretty good 'extra' rights for us. I can't believe that people just can't see past the fact that they don't OWN this stuff.

Just because you get Cable TV doesn't give you ownership over the content they show. Right? Or maybe you feel different about that too. Maybe you should make something, sell me a copy and let me 'own' that and do what I will with it.

And about this exchange thing. TAKE CARE OF YOUR STUFF, MAN. What's with all this scratch-n-dent and then replace-at-cost crap? If you treat your stuff that poorly then maybe it's time to take out... INSURANCE. Your inability to be careful with your stuff doesn't make the vendor responsible. You obviously have a clear understanding that CDs and DVDs are easy to damage... so take the necessary steps to insure they stay in good condition. Sure, some things are out of your control... but such is life. Just because you purchase a new Honda Accord doesn't mean Honda owes you a new one, at cost, just because you're involved in an auto accident and your car will not run any more. Right?

Also... people keep using this "oh my, I have more than five computers and I'm too lazy to rip copies of my music on all the computers so I'm just going to cry 'foul' " stuff is really starting to bug me. Do you REALLY have music setups on all your computers? Good speakers, and such? Do you go from computer to computer so often that you can't hear the music playing from one master workstation? Use something wireless and pipe the music in your office or your home. HOW in the world did you people EVER cope with just one stereo in your house. Did you buy a Boze system for every room in your hosue? or did you write to Boze and tell them that by purchasing one system from them that they OWE you the components to pump the music in every room in your house?

Come on... lighten up, people. BURN CDs... if you're too lazy to do that then just shut up about the 5-authentication limit. And if it is sooooo important to have authentication on that 6th computer don't you think spending 60 seconds to authenticate/deauthenticate is worth the trouble? I mean, you really have to have that other computer on there, right? Then spend a minute of your life authenticating it. I doubt that you own six different computers in six different locations so far apart that there isn't at least two computers close enough to each other that you could just have one running as a music station and still hear it from the other. Because if you do have that many computers, in that many DIFFERENT far away locations then I believe you probably have the money to purchase an extra copy of the song, burn an extra CD, or just get an iPod and carry that with you from computer to computer (that's what I do).

Actually... I guess I'm not really that angry at you, and I can understand your points... I just don't get them. So this post is really all in good fun, don't take it as a personal jab at you, just at the general mentality running on these boards.

sibelius

[sibelius]

Poor college student - downloads with no intent to buy anyway, so if the service didn't exists they still wouldn't be able to buy (however keep in mind they may buy later)

Sampler - either buys it or doesn't (representing normal sales anyway)

Full on Thief - has the money but won't buy anyway (there's probably only a 50% chance that they'd buy in the first place)

Hahahaaahahaahahaaaaaa

Funny, really... no really... funny stuff.

A "poor" college student... with a 1) computer; 2) access to internet connection; 3) enough time on his/her hands to discover where they can steal music.

They could spend all that free time... oh, I don't know... WORKING??? Doing something to get a few extra bucks to purchase the music they want? Whatever, man. It sounds like a cool thing to say, but allowing someone to do something wrong just because you classify them as 'poor' doesn't tug at my heartstring. Teach good character. Character does't relate to money, where you live, or what your education is. The beauty of character is that ANYONE can build it. Unfortunately, we, as a society, can't accept personal responsibility for our current situation/actions... so we seem to be able to justify anything. If you don't have enough money to get something you want why not do what it takes to EARN it. Just because you can't have it NOW NOW NOW doesn't hurt anything. If nothing else, you'll learn to appreciate and respect the things you do have if you have to work hard to get them. Obviously something a thief can't understand. Poor, or rich, stealing is stealing. No way to sugar-coat it.

So... you're chart is true. Except the three different buying types do NOT represent different PEOPLE. Just different stages. Let me clarify:

Poor Student: Spends money on parties, text books, fashion, transportation, housing, dates, school, etc. No extra "$0.99" to purchase a song (which is hard to believe, since every dorm I've EVER been inside in my life has always been stocked with more audio CDs and Records than pages in all the text books they have... so don't pull that 'poor' crap on me). Rather than build character, get a small job to build extra cash, or BUDGET current cashflow to work towards what they want... this person early in life chooses to steal.

Sampler - either buys it or doesn't (representing normal sales anyway) - This category doesn't say much, but I agree... this is everyone. In fact, on iTunes you get to sample every song. Unless you're talking about something else. This also represents the poor student listed above, not some 'different' person.

Full on Thief - has the money but won't buy anyway (there's probably only a 50% chance that they'd buy in the first place) - Hey... guess what??? This is the SAME PERSON that we've been talking about all along!!! It's the poor student with no character who's learned to steal his whole life and has numbed his mind with so much liberal filth that he honestly can not see that he is doing anything wrong!!! The "student" had the money, just wanted to spend it on something else (knowing that he could just steal the music for free and never get caught). This Full On Theif is also the student after graguating and getting that great job he/she always dreamed of... because they've already established the character trait.

Come on folks... stealing is stealing. I don't care what your 'qualifiers' are. Pregnant is pregnant. Dead is dead. Dishonest is dishonest. No gray lines with any of these.

sibelius

[greg75]

Dishonest is calling something theft when it's not.

It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the copyright."
- Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun back in 1985, in Dowling v. the United States"

[titaniumducky]

If this is completely legal (as opposed to accepted practice as it was with audiotapes) I would like to see the legalese for it. I mean it would be interesting to see how they define the terms for "people you know well" :D

btw: iTunes do let you share your tunes completely legally via rendezvous (and it works absolutely beautifully in our office for instance).

Why bother with this nitpicking. Buy the songs you want - it's only a buck/ea anyway. Are you guys really that cheap?

I looked it up, and it appears I was wrong (no big deal - I'm not afraid to admit that I made a mistake).

While not enforced (obviously), if one copy is bought, only one person may legally possess it. TechTV had mentioned that it was legal to distribute songs to friends at some point - that is where I heard it was legal. I have to agree - what's $1?

[davetrow1997]

Dishonest only if aware of that fact (the Supreme Court opinion- and he was writing for the majority, I assume) and purposefully misrepresenting ... otherwise, uninformed, ignorant, or simply incorrect. It's semantics, anyway. Theft equates to unlawfully taking of real property from the party who has ownership of it, whereas copyright infringement does not deal with tangible property... but if someone has the opinion that the infringer is "stealing" someone's work.. well, they are entitled to their opinion.

[fpnc]

Actually, it's completely legal to distribute your songs to friends and known people only. It only becomes piracy when you're no longer giving it to people whom you know well - that is why P2P is illegal. Theoretically, if you built a P2P network that stretched only between 5 (or 3 or whatever number) houses, everyone in each house was known to you well, no one else could access this network, and you were sharing songs, it would be 100% legal.

Okay, I'll bite (this must be a troll). This statement is so ridiculous, naive, and incorrect that it is down right sad (or funny). It is NOT "completely legal to distribute your songs to friends and known people." In the most simple terms this is plain stealing and note that ignorance of the law is not a suitable defense when you commit a crime.

If you limit your music sharing to only a few people are you likely to be caught? Answer, no, so you're probably safe from prosecution. If you commit a crime and are not caught does that make your activity legal? I don't think (or hope) that I really need to answer that.

And I won't comment further on this post by titaniumducky, since like I said this message must be some type of troll.

Update (edit), okay, I see that titaniumducky admitted that his/her original statement was incorrect. I congratulate him/her for providing that update and I apologize if my (this) response seemed a little "sharp."

[davetrow1997]

Hoping people weren't taking from my statement that I agree with copyright infringement. I was only saying that the aforementioned poster who said that illicitly downloading songs was "stealing" was incorrect. In my personal opinion, copyright infringement is akin to theft, in that you are illegally profiting from another person's work. I only meant that it doesn't meet the -legal- definition of theft, which is semantics, really.

I am a faithful user of iTunes music store, and have spent too much hard earned cash on LEGALLY downloading songs. ;o)

[dontmatter]

Hey all,
Just so you know, a new version of getTunes is out, only compatible with iTunes 4.5 (what a surprise!). I know the DRM hasn't cracked, and we already had a program in C for this, but realistically, this is going to affect a hell of a lot more people...

-Matt
matthew at nyu dot edu (obviously format this correctly to e-mail me)


YAY!!!! Wonderful news. Now 4.5 really kicks ass. I know it's not a DRM crack, but I don't want the DRM cracked, that's just too much of a stretch for me.

The best part is....it doesn't look like windows has mytunes back yet! :D :D :p

Ha ha, that's what you get for 95%+ market share....have to wait for software!! [gloats enormously]

[dontmatter]

Hoping people weren't taking from my statement that I agree with copyright infringement. I was only saying that the aforementioned poster who said that illicitly downloading songs was "stealing" was incorrect. In my personal opinion, copyright infringement is akin to theft, in that you are illegally profiting from another person's work. I only meant that it doesn't meet the -legal- definition of theft, which is semantics, really.

I am a faithful user of iTunes music store, and have spent too much hard earned cash on LEGALLY downloading songs. ;o)

I think it's a little more than semantics, because the distinction is important, particularly to our own sense of morality. If piracy was theft, and the origional owner lost something, instead of you just gaining something for free, there would be no debate about it, and no signifigant portion of the population that engaged. However, if I take your music, you don't lose anything-it's not theft. That isn't to say it isn't wrong, but that it is none the less different. Theft is deeply embeded in us as just conceptually wrong. Getting something for free, whether or not it is rightfully being given for free, is not something our society has yet devoleped strong moral codes and convictions about. It's only lately that it even makes that much sense, to get something for free but not take anything away from anybody. This is why piracy is so widespread. It's simply not something we grew up thinking about, being told not to do in kindergarden. And, it's not something where we can really see (unless we really think about it) any harm being done to anybody. If all we see is good being done for ourselves, who on earth expects us to see anything wrong in it, and not engage? (NO, I KNOW that the artists, labels, etc. are involved, and may or may not be harmed...we don't really have comprehensive studies that say whether they benefit from increased exposure, or whether sales are reduced because people can get it for free. And that's the thing with copyright violation, it only matters if they get more or less, b/c nothing is taken from them in violating copyrights, unless you would have bought otherwise.)

so long, all.

[sibelius]

...However, if I take your music, you don't lose anything-it's not theft. That isn't to say it isn't wrong, but that it is none the less different...

Theft does not restrict itself to the physical. Ever 'steal' cable television? It's not physically removing the ability of Time Warner to broadcast, replicate, or distribute the signal elsewhere... so in your example it's not theft at all, right?

This is how I see it. If you take the music, copy the music, or listen to it in a way that was not intended by the creator then it's theft. And let's not kid ourselves here... when someone pirates music there IS a loss in sale. If someone wants something sooo much that they're willing to go out of their way to hunt it down on the internet, or have a friend distribute/burn a copy for them then they were probably willing to have purchase the $0.99 song if that would have been their only option. This "not hurting anyone" mentality is really getting out of hand. Just because it's not physical doesn't make it any less of a theft.

Besides, the bigger issue here is that of character. We're so busy coming up with lame excuses for why we should be able to do whatever we want and not be classified as a theif that we're watering down personal responsibility and the definition of good character. And that just hurts society as a whole.

Why don't you spend the next two years developing the perfect book... a brilliant novel. Go ahead... pour your life and soul into it. I'll just take the text and copy it on my computer, maybe pass it around to anyone that wants to enjoy your great work, but really doesn't have the funds to purchase an actual copy. That's not theft in your eyes, is it? After all... you still hold the original manuscript.

[dontmatter]

Hahahaaahahaahahaaaaaa

Funny, really... no really... funny stuff.

A "poor" college student... with a 1) computer; 2) access to internet connection; 3) enough time on his/her hands to discover where they can steal music.

They could spend all that free time... oh, I don't know... WORKING??? Doing something to get a few extra bucks to purchase the music they want? Whatever, man. It sounds like a cool thing to say, but allowing someone to do something wrong just because you classify them as 'poor' doesn't tug at my heartstring. Teach good character. Character does't relate to money, where you live, or what your education is. The beauty of character is that ANYONE can build it. Unfortunately, we, as a society, can't accept personal responsibility for our current situation/actions... so we seem to be able to justify anything. If you don't have enough money to get something you want why not do what it takes to EARN it. Just because you can't have it NOW NOW NOW doesn't hurt anything. If nothing else, you'll learn to appreciate and respect the things you do have if you have to work hard to get them. Obviously something a thief can't understand. Poor, or rich, stealing is stealing. No way to sugar-coat it.

So... you're chart is true. Except the three different buying types do NOT represent different PEOPLE. Just different stages. Let me clarify:

Poor Student: Spends money on parties, text books, fashion, transportation, housing, dates, school, etc. No extra "$0.99" to purchase a song (which is hard to believe, since every dorm I've EVER been inside in my life has always been stocked with more audio CDs and Records than pages in all the text books they have... so don't pull that 'poor' crap on me). Rather than build character, get a small job to build extra cash, or BUDGET current cashflow to work towards what they want... this person early in life chooses to steal.

Sampler - either buys it or doesn't (representing normal sales anyway) - This category doesn't say much, but I agree... this is everyone. In fact, on iTunes you get to sample every song. Unless you're talking about something else. This also represents the poor student listed above, not some 'different' person.

Full on Thief - has the money but won't buy anyway (there's probably only a 50% chance that they'd buy in the first place) - Hey... guess what??? This is the SAME PERSON that we've been talking about all along!!! It's the poor student with no character who's learned to steal his whole life and has numbed his mind with so much liberal filth that he honestly can not see that he is doing anything wrong!!! The "student" had the money, just wanted to spend it on something else (knowing that he could just steal the music for free and never get caught). This Full On Theif is also the student after graguating and getting that great job he/she always dreamed of... because they've already established the character trait.

Come on folks... stealing is stealing. I don't care what your 'qualifiers' are. Pregnant is pregnant. Dead is dead. Dishonest is dishonest. No gray lines with any of these.

sibelius

Two things. Copyright infringment is copyright infringment, stealing is stealing, but copyright infringment is not stealing. No, it's not good, either, but it is still most certainly different (see my other posts on this one).

Second. yeah, all college students are rich white yuppies who spend all their money on drinking, drugs, clothes, and other indulgences. Good lord, nobody's working their ass off not to spend the rest of their life in debt from college, because they value an education and understanding of the world. and particularly, the computer is a status symbol, nothing more, and has no relevancy as an effectively REQUIRED tool for a college education. And, of course, with this amazing job market, and all the lack of homework, etc. or finnancial burdens of college itself, your average college student can get a $30 an hour job devoted entierly to discretionary spending, work at it as much as he or she likes, and this can all be done in the enormous time it would take to find music illegally, particularly with a high speed intenet access (provided with tuition, you can't say save me a few bucks, I don't need the internet where my prof puts links to our reading assigmnets, for 16th century philosophy, etc. so we don't have to pay through the teeth for one chapter of a 300 page book, where the author is long dead)

That said, yeah, a hell of a lot of college student's are rich white yuppies. I know I am. But, my parents have "character" and wish for me to have some, myself, so while they provide tuition, computer, and other neccessities for my education, and I am so grateful, I haven't had them subsidizing my pleasures since, oh, I tugged at mommey's arm until she let me take some parking change out of the car so I could buy a popsicle before the ice cream truck reached the end of the block.

Sorry for the harshness of this, but, your implication that everybody has the money and is just too lazy and lacking in any self worth is just wrong. Particularly as, this is piracy, not theft, and so people aren't stealing stuff and justifying it by saying they couldn't pay for it, but they're getting something for nothing, and not feeling too bad about it because nobody is losing anything. They're making a copy, and if they didn't make that copy, they couldn't have bought it anyway, so the only practical difference is that they wouldn't have it. Yeah, it's selfish. But it's not harming somebody unless you have the free money to buy it. And, truth be told, lots of people DON'T. So I, personally, don't mind letting them in on the joys of good music, if doing so does nothing but provide them with the joys of good music.

(and my bet is, they will, when they have money, actually buy stuff, not necessarily out of moral obligation, although they should, but because of convenience, wanting lossless stuff, etc. Particularly as my experience is, that the people who do have large libraries of music (which at my age is pretty much equal to having illegally obtained it) move more and more from the mainstream as the listen, and so buying really is more convenient, esp. for the many people who will share friends music but arent' morally comfortable w/ p2p, such as myself)

[sibelius]

Two things. Copyright infringment is copyright infringment, stealing is stealing, but copyright infringment is not stealing. No, it's not good, either, but it is still most certainly different (see my other posts on this one).

Second. yeah, all college students are rich white yuppies who spend all their money on drinking, drugs, clothes, and other indulgences. Good lord, nobody's working their ass off not to spend the rest of their life in debt from college, because they value an education and understanding of the world. and particularly, the computer is a status symbol, nothing more, and has no relevancy as an effectively REQUIRED tool for a college education.

Okay... point taken (even though we will probably never agree on several issues).

First of all, I'm sorry I came off as blanketing every college student like some theif. I was only talking about those that steal music. I wasn't trying to reference all students.

Second, copyright infringment is copyright infringment, stealing is stealing, but copyright infringment is not stealing. Copyright infringment CAN be stealing... depending on the infringment. That's one important item many people overlook.

Here is my big point (in all my blabbing): If you can't afford it what's wrong with waiting until you CAN afford it???? Is that so hard to understand for some of these people? Gangsters have a similar mentality... if they like you're shoes, or your ride... well... why not just put a cap in your head for it? Because they want it NOW and just don't want to bother with EARNING it.

Distributing music is, however, theft. People DO suffer. You might honestly believe that one REO Speedwagon song you downloaded for free is something you'd never have purchased anyway... so what's the harm?? Well, simply because we have millions and millions of people every day kidding themselves that very same way. They actually have trained themselves to believe that they can just download 'whatever' because they 'wouldn't have bought it anyway, so where's the harm?' The thing is... the more and more you do it, the less and less you see yourself in the position of wanting to 'buy' anything. 15 years ago I might have purcahsed a Janet Jackson CD. Today.... ehhhh... not really... so I'll just download it for free. Right? Wrong! The only difference between then and now is that I didn't have a pirating choice back then. There was no Napster... no P2Ps... so if I really wanted to listen to something I purchased it. You'd be suprised at just how much free time a student can muster up, and how much extra work they can do... if they want something bad enough. The thing is, we don't want anything bad enough any more. That's IT!!

Things don't hold value with us like they used to... because we've watered down their value so much over the years. And when you don't value something then you're not going to work hard towards it.

So I guess that's my whole point... we just don't value certain things like we used to -- we don't want anything bad enough to work for it. We have to have it NOW, we don't want it to cost anything, but we still want to not feel bad, so we just lie to ourselves.

sibelius

[dontmatter]

Theft does not restrict itself to the physical. Ever 'steal' cable television? It's not physically removing the ability of Time Warner to broadcast, replicate, or distribute the signal elsewhere... so in your example it's not theft at all, right?

This is how I see it. If you take the music, copy the music, or listen to it in a way that was not intended by the creator then it's theft. And let's not kid ourselves here... when someone pirates music there IS a loss in sale. If someone wants something sooo much that they're willing to go out of their way to hunt it down on the internet, or have a friend distribute/burn a copy for them then they were probably willing to have purchase the $0.99 song if that would have been their only option. This "not hurting anyone" mentality is really getting out of hand. Just because it's not physical doesn't make it any less of a theft.

Besides, the bigger issue here is that of character. We're so busy coming up with lame excuses for why we should be able to do whatever we want and not be classified as a theif that we're watering down personal responsibility and the definition of good character. And that just hurts society as a whole.

Why don't you spend the next two years developing the perfect book... a brilliant novel. Go ahead... pour your life and soul into it. I'll just take the text and copy it on my computer, maybe pass it around to anyone that wants to enjoy your great work, but really doesn't have the funds to purchase an actual copy. That's not theft in your eyes, is it? After all... you still hold the original manuscript.

Yes, "stealing" cable TV, I would say, is not in fact theft. Doesn't mean it isn't wrong, as I said before. I'm not saying breaking copyrights is fine, I'm saying it's different than theft. And, sometimes there is a lost sale, sometimes there isn't. You can't possibley argue that if you hear a friend's mix CD and go, wow, I really like this stuff, can you send it to me, is equal to spending 18 bucks for each of the songs. You can't possibly argue that each song in a person's 5000 song library who has $750 in the bank is a lost purchase (thinking college student here). The question is, did he/she spend more or less than if he hadn't pirated? That's the realm of lost or not lost sales.

Now, still, as I said, breaking copyright is still not a morally good thing. I regularly buy music I could get for free, because I think it's the right thing to do. But, I also have more songs than I have dollars, and I DO appretiate them.

yeah, it may not be the best sign of character. But you don't get character by enforcing it, you get it by makiing people appretiate and love the people around them, both those they see their effects on and those they don't. That's what character is. Making it so one cannot do something that poorly reflects character doesn't make them better, it just makes it so you can't see their bad character. And, I contest, it may not bee in good character that downloading music illegally happens, and yet many people who do it are very much otherwise quite morally upright and caring people, and I would like to include myself in this category.

And, no, if I put my mind and soul into something, and people spread it around b/c they could, I wouldn't like it. But I dare say, if they weren't going to buy it anyway, I would be glad to provide them the pleasure of it, rather than be greedy. What am I supposed to do- "oh, sorry, I don't care that your schools can't afford my wonderful novel, and none of the students would read it if I didn't allow you to break copyrights (photocopy, computer, doesn't matter how), but I want my money that I'm not getting, so you can't. HAH!"

[sibelius]

Two things. Copyright infringment is copyright infringment, stealing is stealing, but copyright infringment is not stealing. No, it's not good, either, but it is still most certainly different (see my other posts on this one).

Second. yeah, all college students are rich white yuppies who spend all their money on drinking, drugs, clothes, and other indulgences. Good lord, nobody's working their ass off not to spend the rest of their life in debt from college, because they value an education and understanding of the world. and particularly, the computer is a status symbol, nothing more, and has no relevancy as an effectively REQUIRED tool for a college education.

Okay... point taken (even though we will probably never agree on several issues).

First of all, I'm sorry I came off as blanketing every college student like some theif. I was only talking about those that steal music. I wasn't trying to reference all students.

Second, copyright infringment is copyright infringment, stealing is stealing, but copyright infringment is not stealing. Copyright infringment CAN be stealing... depending on the infringment. That's one important item many people overlook.

Here is my big point (in all my blabbing): If you can't afford it what's wrong with waiting until you CAN afford it???? Is that so hard to understand for some of these people? Gangsters have a similar mentality... if they like you're shoes, or your ride... well... why not just put a cap in your head for it? Because they want it NOW and just don't want to bother with EARNING it.

Distributing music is, however, theft. People DO suffer. You might honestly believe that one REO Speedwagon song you downloaded for free is something you'd never have purchased anyway... so what's the harm?? Well, simply because we have millions and millions of people every day kidding themselves that very same way. They actually have trained themselves to believe that they can just download 'whatever' because they 'wouldn't have bought it anyway, so where's the harm?' The thing is... the more and more you do it, the less and less you see yourself in the position of wanting to 'buy' anything. 15 years ago I might have purcahsed a Janet Jackson CD. Today.... ehhhh... not really... so I'll just download it for free. Right? Wrong! The only difference between then and now is that I didn't have a pirating choice back then. There was no Napster... no P2Ps... so if I really wanted to listen to something I purchased it. You'd be suprised at just how much free time a student can muster up, and how much extra work they can do... if they want something bad enough. The thing is, we don't want anything bad enough any more. That's IT!!

Things don't hold value with us like they used to... because we've watered down their value so much over the years. And when you don't value something then you're not going to work hard towards it.

So I guess that's my whole point... we just don't value certain things like we used to -- we don't want anything bad enough to work for it. We have to have it NOW, we don't want it to cost anything, but we still want to not feel bad, so we just lie to ourselves.

sibelius

[sibelius]

...What am I supposed to do- "oh, sorry, I don't care that your schools can't afford my wonderful novel, and none of the students would read it if I didn't allow you to break copyrights (photocopy, computer, doesn't matter how), but I want my money that I'm not getting, so you can't. HAH!"

Well now, if you "the artist" wants people to have your work for free then our conversation is over. :) I do apprecaite your attitude.

I personally would have a different approach, knowing full well that the schools DO have the money (they're just spending it poorly) or that there is a good tax benefit to donating to a school. But, I don't think I'd want my work spread for free all over the internet. It makes the purchased work worth less. No matter how you look at it.

Spreading your 'love' across all the people for free is actually a very nice thing to think. It's just not thought through. You see, without revenue from the sales of your book you're sunk. Two years of hard work down the drain. No one will publish your future works because it won't sell... you can't afford to write any more because you're starving and lost your house (and probablly your family), etc., etc., etc. Very simply, by allowing people to pirate your hard work you've just denied them access to ever seeing any future work of yours again (because you just can't afford it). So, you tell me... is THAT right? The 'love' thought is a typical college thing to say (and believe me... I don't disrespect you for it at all)... but it's the ability to see that honestly paying for your work IS THE REAL 'love' in this situation is just something that comes with experience. It seems like 'hard, cold, corporate' mentality... but it's not. If your publisher makes money, and you make money and people are happy because they purchased your book and you're able to make more, then that's what is right. Besides, people that get stuff for free just can't appreciate them like they do if they had to get out and mow 100 lawns to earn whatever it is they're after. You can't "give" apprecaition to someone... it has to be earned. Just like respect.

sibelius

[dontmatter]

Okay... point taken (even though we will probably never agree on several issues).

First of all, I'm sorry I came off as blanketing every college student like some theif. I was only talking about those that steal music. I wasn't trying to reference all students.

Second, copyright infringment is copyright infringment, stealing is stealing, but copyright infringment is not stealing. Copyright infringment CAN be stealing... depending on the infringment. That's one important item many people overlook.

Here is my big point (in all my blabbing): If you can't afford it what's wrong with waiting until you CAN afford it???? Is that so hard to understand for some of these people? Gangsters have a similar mentality... if they like you're shoes, or your ride... well... why not just put a cap in your head for it? Because they want it NOW and just don't want to bother with EARNING it.

Distributing music is, however, theft. People DO suffer. You might honestly believe that one REO Speedwagon song you downloaded for free is something you'd never have purchased anyway... so what's the harm?? Well, simply because we have millions and millions of people every day kidding themselves that very same way. They actually have trained themselves to believe that they can just download 'whatever' because they 'wouldn't have bought it anyway, so where's the harm?' The thing is... the more and more you do it, the less and less you see yourself in the position of wanting to 'buy' anything. 15 years ago I might have purcahsed a Janet Jackson CD. Today.... ehhhh... not really... so I'll just download it for free. Right? Wrong! The only difference between then and now is that I didn't have a pirating choice back then. There was no Napster... no P2Ps... so if I really wanted to listen to something I purchased it. You'd be suprised at just how much free time a student can muster up, and how much extra work they can do... if they want something bad enough. The thing is, we don't want anything bad enough any more. That's IT!!

Things don't hold value with us like they used to... because we've watered down their value so much over the years. And when you don't value something then you're not going to work hard towards it.

So I guess that's my whole point... we just don't value certain things like we used to -- we don't want anything bad enough to work for it. We have to have it NOW, we don't want it to cost anything, but we still want to not feel bad, so we just lie to ourselves.

sibelius

OK, point taken also. I agree, many people have quite a sense of entitlment, that is false. And, I agree, many people justify things by the "wouldn't buy it anyway" argument, who would, but I still mantiain that there is a certain ammount, that people wouldn't buy anyway, and I don't know for sure, but I know that for me, yeah, I'm not proud of it, but music is therapy for me, and I kinda do want it now, particularly as if I wait, there will only be more that I want, and can't afford. I figure I'll spend as much as I can, continually, and the rest I couldn't afford anyway. Particularly because, the more I have, the more I discover, and the more I end up buying. I'm not sure if this is universally true, but I do know, for me, I literally quadrupled, AT LEAST the ammount spend on music, when I went to college and started swapping stuff over LAN with friends. Also, I have much, much better taste in music now. But, I know that it's still not perfect that I have a bunch I haven't paid for, even though I really, do not have that money, or the time to earn it, at the moment. But, it provides me a lot of pleasure, and at realatively little moral cost, as I see it. I'd rather put my moral efforts into other places, just because I think their a bigger deal.

I mean, yeah, I admit, I gave more money one single charity than I spent on music, and pirated easily as much music, instead. (Conservation International, by the way, an absolutely amazing, really well thought out, effective environmental charity... has a great plan looking at things on the global level, analyzing what is most important to save, how best to do it, etc. and also has some really unique approaches that help the local communities (esp. preserving cultures, too), increase awarness on a global level, and preserve land with incredible biological diversity)

But, should I have not done that, and bought music instead? I don't think it's quite as important. Should I have just gone without the music that I couldn't afford because it went there? Well, yeah, it would have been better morally, but I just think it's a bit to miniscule, since I wasn't buying the music anyway. Or, should I have done what I did- support some amazing artists, and sadly not support others, but accomplish something else, in the process?

And, I know, no, I don't give all my money to charities, right now I'm debating going out to get ice cream because it is beautiful weather, and I want to indulge. But, I'm just saying, the moral advantage of buying music isn't really that much when compared to lots of other things, in my mind.

Now, I'm not going to engage in this debate anymore, because I think all here have given as much as they have to offer, and any continuation is simply shouting at a person who's already decided they arent' listening.

Not to mention, I don't have this much free time.

[dontmatter]

Well now, if you "the artist" wants people to have your work for free then our conversation is over. :) I do apprecaite your attitude.

I personally would have a different approach, knowing full well that the schools DO have the money (they're just spending it poorly) or that there is a good tax benefit to donating to a school. But, I don't think I'd want my work spread for free all over the internet. It makes the purchased work worth less. No matter how you look at it.

Spreading your 'love' across all the people for free is actually a very nice thing to think. It's just not thought through. You see, without revenue from the sales of your book you're sunk. Two years of hard work down the drain. No one will publish your future works because it won't sell... you can't afford to write any more because you're starving and lost your house (and probablly your family), etc., etc., etc. Very simply, by allowing people to pirate your hard work you've just denied them access to ever seeing any future work of yours again (because you just can't afford it). So, you tell me... is THAT right? The 'love' thought is a typical college thing to say (and believe me... I don't disrespect you for it at all)... but it's the ability to see that honestly paying for your work IS THE REAL 'love' in this situation is just something that comes with experience. It seems like 'hard, cold, corporate' mentality... but it's not. If your publisher makes money, and you make money and people are happy because they purchased your book and you're able to make more, then that's what is right. Besides, people that get stuff for free just can't appreciate them like they do if they had to get out and mow 100 lawns to earn whatever it is they're after. You can't "give" apprecaition to someone... it has to be earned. Just like respect.

sibelius

Last thing: yes, I see that i still wouldn't spread my stuff around the internet because then it would be my last work. But I don't see that people arent' buying music, or that people who download it aren't also buying it too. Artists still generally can make their next work, and if not, I don't think the culprit is sharing, at least not to a great degree. If it could only go to the people who couldn't afford it, and people had the moral sense to pay for what they could afford, then I think the story would be somewhat different. As is, all I'm trying to say is it's not ideal, but it's not horrendus.

Anyway, thank you very much for this quite stimulating discussion (debate?). I don't think we're actually that far apart, we just give different weights to different parts of the issue, and it tips the scale.

[settledown]

I dont want to bust up your debate, but where is the new post for macrumors. nothing all weekend about the powermacs, or even the new powerbook g5 this tuesday....









hehe, new PB's this tuesday is going to be on my headstone.

[greenstork]

Okay, I'll bite (this must be a troll). This statement is so ridiculous, naive, and incorrect that it is down right sad (or funny). It is NOT "completely legal to distribute your songs to friends and known people." In the most simple terms this is plain stealing and note that ignorance of the law is not a suitable defense when you commit a crime.

If you limit your music sharing to only a few people are you likely to be caught? Answer, no, so you're probably safe from prosecution. If you commit a crime and are not caught does that make your activity legal? I don't think (or hope) that I really need to answer that.

And I won't comment further on this post by titaniumducky, since like I said this message must be some type of troll.

Update (edit), okay, I see that titaniumducky admitted that his/her original statement was incorrect. I congratulate him/her for providing that update and I apologize if my (this) response seemed a little "sharp."

I'm sorry this statement isn't wrong, it's just not defined. What the original poster could be referring to is "fair use" under the DMCA. Fair use was left purposefully vague and subject to many a court disputes. So sharing music with your friends could classify as fair use, and then again, it might not, it's up for interpretation.

To my knowledge, there is no precedent for fair use as it relates to sharing music among friends. I'd be happy to see legal proof otherwise.

This raises a larger question as to whether or not the DMCA is constitutional, which is also open to interpretation.

Regardless, the original poster isn't wrong to the point where you should vilify him, the laws surrounding this issue are still evolving, it's not like the ability to share music so readily around the world has been around that long. Anyone who says there are definitive laws that have been examined from every angle is just plain wrong.

EDIT: For more information than any speculators on this thread actually know, read here: http://www.eff.org/cafe/drmgame/copyright-faq.html#sharing

[Freak-a-leak]

This debate is ludicrous. Completely.

Let me address the issues at hand with facts...not opinions. I am sure some folks will get upset...but oh well...go find something better to whine about.

Argument 1) "I hate these programs...they only ruin it for the rest of us".
Answer 1) Wrong. Do you think the RIAA and others will stop writing CDs? How easy is it to burn a CD? Real simple...eh? If iTunes goes away (which will unequivocally won't happen since money is being made - its a business model where companies make some nice $$), you still have your CDs you can rip. And people WILL trade the files. Piracy has been around for quite some time. They key is to educate folks to "do the right thing", not treat them as criminals.

Argument 2) "This is stealing from the artists and record companies and they won't be able to feed themselves."
Answer 2) Come off it. Have you seen the margins of the music that is bought? The record companies make a huge margin. They are a little upset that thier business model has been upset. Gone are the days where the record companies' cost for a CD is $4.75 (of which the artist gets between .25 and .50) and they charge $18.99. The markup in music is horrible and the RIAA and friends don't like the writing they see on the wall...they will be making a "reasonable" profit instead of the gluttonous amounts they have been making. They don't like that they no longer have control over distribution. The artists will still make good money. They will tour and come to your town and you will buy a $50 ticket to enjoy thier live music. Do the math ($50 * 10000 (conservative amount of people at an event)) = 1/2 million dollars...per show. Not bad for a day's worth of work. You think they are going to starve? They will continue to make money since that business model will never be replaced. But EMI and Capitol records will unfortunately be squeezed out of thier gluttony. Don't believe me that they are gluttonous about thier margins? This will affect all of you: http://www.theregister.com/2004/04/09/pigopolist_price_hike/.

Argument 3) "I am glad Apple did this...those DRM stripping programs are wrong and violate the law."
Answer 3) Wrong. They do not violate the law. They are actually protected under the fair use clause of Title 17. In fact, Source Forge and its Indian equivalent didn't need to pull down the software. There is a clause under the DMCA that claims "Safe Harbour" (see http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/) and those two companies fit the bill. The reason they pulled it was to escape a law suit. In the good ole' US of A, litigation is used as a weapon against those who have little to no $$. Apple, the RIAA, MPAA, and DirecTV use this to thier advantage. If our system matched some European countries' laws where the loser must pay the winner's legal costs, rest assured, many of these lawsuits would not occur.

Argument 4) "What do I need Fair Use for? Apple gives me all the fair use I want...7 computers, etc."
Answer 4) No...this is your opinion and not a fact...Apple gives you fair use under thier own guidelines and interpretation of the law. If you are strictly a Mac user and a Mac household, then you have nothing to whine about. But if you own several MP3 players and different operating systems, then you are not being given fair use. You are being given a right to listen to music, and under the law of the US Government (case law included), you have a right to listen to this music on any device you wish (see Sony v. Universal Studios http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/sony_v_universal_decision.php). So if someone chooses to strip the DRM to listen on Linux or another device, then that is thier constitutional right to do so.

Argument 5) "Piracy will ruin the companies! I don't want to lose my music!"
Answer 5) I hate to break it to you...but piracy has been around for longer than many of you have been on this earth. Lets take the music industry as example. Since 8 track tapes, people made copies and sold them through the mail and on the streets. Go for a walk down Canal street in New York...and see how many different music CDs you can buy for real cheap from "pirates". Remember cassette tapes? Oh, the copies that were made! And look at the record companies...still making money. Nobody went under. Nobody lost thier massive incomes. Now comes the digital revolution. Based on past history, I think the record companies and executives will still make money with piracy in thier back yard. Don't believe me? Maybe you will believe a couple of studies. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34300-2004Mar29.html and http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/04/12/music.industry.ap/.

Argument 6) "I am so glad Apple brought down these programs. Now they (hackers) will go away and we can continue enjoying our iTunes."
Answer 6) Yes, Apple brought these programs down. Now they created a monster and community to rebuild these programs. All they did was create a challenge to programmers, constitutional advocates, etc. Rest assured the DRM will be cracked, just for the challenge. Its not that hard to reengineer iTunes and get the exact code needed to strip the DRM. It WILL happen...its just a matter of time. Then Apple will switch it up, and the open source development teams will respond. This will not the end and you are kidding yourself to believe that it will. Understand that Apple has some great developers, but they have some great competition out in the real world who are probably alot smarter. Don't believe me? Look at the GAIM project who thwarted Yahoo and MSNs attack on switching up the IM protocol. AOL finally gave in and found it was futile to continue to foil the community. Also look at DirecTV...they sent down electronic countermeasures to attempt to thwart "pirates". The community came back with boot loaders that overcame damaged cards by DirecTV. It became a cat-and-mouse game to people. Many people were engaged just for the challenge to see who was "smarter". This same line of thinking will occur under the Apple regime, and in due time, Apple's management will find this is futile, and will stop the DRM updates. They will lose this battle.

Final thoughts...and now my own opinion. I think Apple should concentrate on the great service and seemless integration with the iPod...and other "players". They should get rid of the DRM because its not going stop or even hinder file trading. People will still burn CDs and will find ways to "crack" thier DRM. Its a pointless waste of brain power and development resources to continue DRM. That money is much better spent in educating thier "customers" on the morals surrounding file sharing and the R&D to make thier products even better. Remember, we are the artist's, record companies' , and Apple's customers and they should treat us as the good customers that we are..and not as criminals.

[ethernet76]

Haha, well, for the occasional song I don't mind. I wouldn't use it for an album, but if I just need to hear a song, I don't mind. I also used to not mind more while I was still using the included headphones (welcome to college life lack of funds...). I use e3c's now, and the differences are just as apparent as they are on my monitors.

Also, I know this may not be the venue for this, but while I have the attention of audiophiles, anyone see the new digi ICON? WOW! Only question I have is if there'll be a patch bay or something to use outboard stuff, or if we can only use plugins.

I prefer my Seinhieser 497s for walking around campus(32 ohms impededance). And for studio recording I move to AKG 501s. I have a headphone amp, but my gen 1 iPod is already big enough, and don't use it unless I'm carrying my backpack on me. Then I use the seinhieser HD 580s.

p.s. You should have gotten the Etymotic ER-4Ps. They're much better sounding than the E3Cs and cheaper too.

[zync]

This is incorrect. The law states that you may reasonably back up your medium. 100 copies is not reasonable, and when you give those CDs to your friends they are no longer yours. Which moves you into piracy.

Furthermore, the supreme court could go either way. They're not to bright when it comes to computer stuff(Look at them they're all 90).

Read more carefully...in the clause within the parentheses I wrote that it technically is illegal, and I said bear with me on that point :)

[zync]

First off, when you purchase something (like music, movies, etc.) you are purchasing the rights to listen to/view that piece in the FORM you purchased it. You have no other rights to that unless they are GIVEN to you. I think Apple has been very good at getting some pretty good 'extra' rights for us. I can't believe that people just can't see past the fact that they don't OWN this stuff.

Just because you get Cable TV doesn't give you ownership over the content they show. Right? Or maybe you feel different about that too. Maybe you should make something, sell me a copy and let me 'own' that and do what I will with it.

And about this exchange thing. TAKE CARE OF YOUR STUFF, MAN. What's with all this scratch-n-dent and then replace-at-cost crap? If you treat your stuff that poorly then maybe it's time to take out... INSURANCE. Your inability to be careful with your stuff doesn't make the vendor responsible. You obviously have a clear understanding that CDs and DVDs are easy to damage... so take the necessary steps to insure they stay in good condition. Sure, some things are out of your control... but such is life. Just because you purchase a new Honda Accord doesn't mean Honda owes you a new one, at cost, just because you're involved in an auto accident and your car will not run any more. Right?

Also... people keep using this "oh my, I have more than five computers and I'm too lazy to rip copies of my music on all the computers so I'm just going to cry 'foul' " stuff is really starting to bug me. Do you REALLY have music setups on all your computers? Good speakers, and such? Do you go from computer to computer so often that you can't hear the music playing from one master workstation? Use something wireless and pipe the music in your office or your home. HOW in the world did you people EVER cope with just one stereo in your house. Did you buy a Boze system for every room in your hosue? or did you write to Boze and tell them that by purchasing one system from them that they OWE you the components to pump the music in every room in your house?

Come on... lighten up, people. BURN CDs... if you're too lazy to do that then just shut up about the 5-authentication limit. And if it is sooooo important to have authentication on that 6th computer don't you think spending 60 seconds to authenticate/deauthenticate is worth the trouble? I mean, you really have to have that other computer on there, right? Then spend a minute of your life authenticating it. I doubt that you own six different computers in six different locations so far apart that there isn't at least two computers close enough to each other that you could just have one running as a music station and still hear it from the other. Because if you do have that many computers, in that many DIFFERENT far away locations then I believe you probably have the money to purchase an extra copy of the song, burn an extra CD, or just get an iPod and carry that with you from computer to computer (that's what I do).

Actually... I guess I'm not really that angry at you, and I can understand your points... I just don't get them. So this post is really all in good fun, don't take it as a personal jab at you, just at the general mentality running on these boards.

sibelius

Realize that this is not an attack and I'm not taking this personally since you said it wasn't.

First off it's Bose not Boze :) Secondly, I said that I don't have 6 computers and I could just use my iPod but the point is that I don't see the point in DRM. Thirdly, I could have all the computers set to play through one sound system :) Fourth, the reason Honda shouldn't give you a new car is that you purchased an object and not a license. Fifth, all of my CDs are scratch free and I thought it was apparent that those were hypothetical statements. Sixth, CDs and tapes license you a copy of that song, and that license is medium independent. I never said they had to offer you an exchange, I asked why don't they let you exchange these things at cost since you bought a license and not an object.

[sjk]

II have a headphone amp, but my gen 1 iPod is already big enough, and don't use it unless I'm carrying my backpack on me. Then I use the seinhieser HD 580s.Which headphone amp do you use with your HD 580's?

[zync]

Hahahaaahahaahahaaaaaa

Funny, really... no really... funny stuff.

A "poor" college student... with a 1) computer; 2) access to internet connection; 3) enough time on his/her hands to discover where they can steal music.

They could spend all that free time... oh, I don't know... WORKING??? Doing something to get a few extra bucks to purchase the music they want? Whatever, man. It sounds like a cool thing to say, but allowing someone to do something wrong just because you classify them as 'poor' doesn't tug at my heartstring. Teach good character. Character does't relate to money, where you live, or what your education is. The beauty of character is that ANYONE can build it. Unfortunately, we, as a society, can't accept personal responsibility for our current situation/actions... so we seem to be able to justify anything. If you don't have enough money to get something you want why not do what it takes to EARN it. Just because you can't have it NOW NOW NOW doesn't hurt anything. If nothing else, you'll learn to appreciate and respect the things you do have if you have to work hard to get them. Obviously something a thief can't understand. Poor, or rich, stealing is stealing. No way to sugar-coat it.

So... you're chart is true. Except the three different buying types do NOT represent different PEOPLE. Just different stages. Let me clarify:

Poor Student: Spends money on parties, text books, fashion, transportation, housing, dates, school, etc. No extra "$0.99" to purchase a song (which is hard to believe, since every dorm I've EVER been inside in my life has always been stocked with more audio CDs and Records than pages in all the text books they have... so don't pull that 'poor' crap on me). Rather than build character, get a small job to build extra cash, or BUDGET current cashflow to work towards what they want... this person early in life chooses to steal.

Sampler - either buys it or doesn't (representing normal sales anyway) - This category doesn't say much, but I agree... this is everyone. In fact, on iTunes you get to sample every song. Unless you're talking about something else. This also represents the poor student listed above, not some 'different' person.

Full on Thief - has the money but won't buy anyway (there's probably only a 50% chance that they'd buy in the first place) - Hey... guess what??? This is the SAME PERSON that we've been talking about all along!!! It's the poor student with no character who's learned to steal his whole life and has numbed his mind with so much liberal filth that he honestly can not see that he is doing anything wrong!!! The "student" had the money, just wanted to spend it on something else (knowing that he could just steal the music for free and never get caught). This Full On Theif is also the student after graguating and getting that great job he/she always dreamed of... because they've already established the character trait.

Come on folks... stealing is stealing. I don't care what your 'qualifiers' are. Pregnant is pregnant. Dead is dead. Dishonest is dishonest. No gray lines with any of these.

sibelius

Before I begin I shall apologize for multiple posts. It'd be too difficult to piece these into one.

First of all, the "poor college student" was not my example. It came from the person I quoted in that response. The person in each example could be the same person, however that is irrelevant. If we were to take a slice of time, all three people would be represented and no single person could be in more than two of those stages. I know, from my own experience, that I may download music from P2P software. I'm considered a college student that had enough funds to buy a mac but little money for anything else. I run a barebones operation and have little "extra" money. I do know however that one day I will have this money and I will buy the music of the artists I have as long as I think they're worth it.

I did it with incubus. I downloaded lots of incubus songs. Guess what? When I had the money, I went out and bought all of the remaining incubus CDs I had left to buy. While, I may not be the typical college student, I cannot simply be alone in my reasoning.

Also, since you so blatantly attack liberals, I'm going to assuming you're very conservative. However, my assumption is not derived from there, it's derived from a logical reasoning that I've attained from studying people and listening to their conversations. Conservatives tend to think that the world owes no one anything and that if people need money they can simply "get a job." However liberals tend to see things as we should take care of these people and help them to get jobs. While I take a more liberal stance I'm in the middle on this. While it's easy for some people to get jobs, not all people can get one easily and some people simply aren't capable. With the current state of the economy, under your leader Bush, jobs are again at a low, so it's not so easy for people to just pick up a job. You must have never been unemployed 1. as a student and 2. as during and economic low. When will people learn that jobs are not always easy to attain and that sometimes it's harder than others? Do you think unemployment is high for a reason? Do you think there are that many people out there who like to watch their families starve on welfare?

For instance, though I'm highly qualified to do many things, I found it hard when the business I worked for went under after I graduated from highschool. While it'd normally take me a few weeks to get a job at most it took me over three months because all the students who had graduated or simply needed summer jobs had beaten me to it because of the time I got laid off.

This argument has gotten way out of scope. Suffice it to say that jobs are not always easy to attain and that college students are in a transitional period and it's harder for them to find jobs. They can't take on normal high school jobs in many cases because they need a larger income, and they can't get higher paying jobs because they're not finished with their degrees and don't have the time or experience. Think before what you say, I'm not saying you don't I'm just saying be considerate to all views and not just your own and please don't take everything I said here as being my situation as you have in previous posts.

[zync]

Theft does not restrict itself to the physical. Ever 'steal' cable television? It's not physically removing the ability of Time Warner to broadcast, replicate, or distribute the signal elsewhere... so in your example it's not theft at all, right?

This is how I see it. If you take the music, copy the music, or listen to it in a way that was not intended by the creator then it's theft. And let's not kid ourselves here... when someone pirates music there IS a loss in sale. If someone wants something sooo much that they're willing to go out of their way to hunt it down on the internet, or have a friend distribute/burn a copy for them then they were probably willing to have purchase the $0.99 song if that would have been their only option. This "not hurting anyone" mentality is really getting out of hand. Just because it's not physical doesn't make it any less of a theft.

Besides, the bigger issue here is that of character. We're so busy coming up with lame excuses for why we should be able to do whatever we want and not be classified as a theif that we're watering down personal responsibility and the definition of good character. And that just hurts society as a whole.

Why don't you spend the next two years developing the perfect book... a brilliant novel. Go ahead... pour your life and soul into it. I'll just take the text and copy it on my computer, maybe pass it around to anyone that wants to enjoy your great work, but really doesn't have the funds to purchase an actual copy. That's not theft in your eyes, is it? After all... you still hold the original manuscript.

OK. I'm a thief. What's your point? Do I have good character? Yes. When a society does something, however wrong in anyone's eyes, it is no longer wrong within that society. Our society has become one of music pirates, so when I'm a cut above the rest and actually buy artists I really like, I have good character. Is headhunting wrong? In America, yes. In many countries in southeast Asia, no. There's the case.

If I write a major book within the next few years I will give you a copy. I don't write a book solely to be bought. Yes, I'd like people to buy a copy but what's important is what was written and the people who read it. Books have a power far greater power than their monetary value. Besides, I'd have confidence in my own writing that the people you'd give it to would 1. rather read it in book form anyway and 2. be compelled to buy a copy in the first place. As far as I know the actual copyright (pending my looking it up and reading it fully) is only violated when someone makes a profit off of your work or claims it to be their own.

As an aside, ever heard of a library? By the way they have CDs too. BTW, if the artist is relatively known, it's EASY to get their song.

[zync]

Well now, if you "the artist" wants people to have your work for free then our conversation is over. :) I do apprecaite your attitude.

I personally would have a different approach, knowing full well that the schools DO have the money (they're just spending it poorly) or that there is a good tax benefit to donating to a school. But, I don't think I'd want my work spread for free all over the internet. It makes the purchased work worth less. No matter how you look at it.

Spreading your 'love' across all the people for free is actually a very nice thing to think. It's just not thought through. You see, without revenue from the sales of your book you're sunk. Two years of hard work down the drain. No one will publish your future works because it won't sell... you can't afford to write any more because you're starving and lost your house (and probablly your family), etc., etc., etc. Very simply, by allowing people to pirate your hard work you've just denied them access to ever seeing any future work of yours again (because you just can't afford it). So, you tell me... is THAT right? The 'love' thought is a typical college thing to say (and believe me... I don't disrespect you for it at all)... but it's the ability to see that honestly paying for your work IS THE REAL 'love' in this situation is just something that comes with experience. It seems like 'hard, cold, corporate' mentality... but it's not. If your publisher makes money, and you make money and people are happy because they purchased your book and you're able to make more, then that's what is right. Besides, people that get stuff for free just can't appreciate them like they do if they had to get out and mow 100 lawns to earn whatever it is they're after. You can't "give" apprecaition to someone... it has to be earned. Just like respect.

sibelius

The love thing is not a typical college thought first of all. That's a humanitarian thought, and one I prefer. No single author in history that could be considered a good author has ever sat down to write with the mindset that they're going to make a lot of money off of their book. That's not the purpose of a book. One great example. J.R.R. Tolkien wrote LotR without the intention of ever publishing it. It was only when his son had proofread the works that he convinced him to publish.

I went to a concert today. I didn't pay for the tickets because someone was kind enough to give me and my friend one. I really enjoyed myself, and we actually BOUGHT three CDs mind you (Our libraries together are about 15 thousand songs), and found a musician (http://www.that1guy.com/) that we just had to buy his CD since he was so innovative and original. That's what the industry lacks, but I digress. The point is that whether or not I paid for those tickets has jack squat to do with my appreciation of them. If someone gives me a PowerBook, do I not appreciate it? I would think that I'd appreciate it even more, just as I did with the tickets, since someone was kind enough to give it to me.

Oh yes, mr. conservative, schools have money. Yep. Ever hear of Florida? My University, under Jeb (you remember Jeb, right?), has had to cut back the art program (my major is art) since 1. we're building a high speed rail for no reason 2. art is deemed not useful (though in actual fields it seems to be quite apparent) and 3. because Jeb thought so. We haven't been cut back so hughgely, no, no, only a quarter of a million over the past few years, however this is cumulative. So yes, this year we received over half a million less than we normally would, all the while supporting an art department that has grown in recent years. That's just lovely isn't it, mr. conservative?

Edit: I'm sorry as I didn't intend an attack but it seems that that is what I have written. In any case, many individuals have said what I have said now that I have read all of the posts, and while their words may not have impacted you I hope mine have, or at least the opposite. I realize that we're probably going to differ on many subjects regarding opinions, but on things such as schools having money, in many places those things are known FACTS. Here in Florida, schools have NO money. Teachers are getting pay cuts and the student to teacher ratio is swiftly rising.

Also I give my views to show that not every college student fits the bill you've drawn up for them. I'm not a white yuppie (For the record I'm a mutt that's basically every white culture such as Irish, French, German, Australian, etc. along with Cuban, Spanish, and Italian), and while I get paid to go to college, I have other expenses which include the car that I drive to school. I also have car insurance, and a huge amount of gas to pay for since it's 40 miles just to go to school each day. If I had any other expenses I'd be in the negatives. As it is I'm regulary running with about 20-100 in the bank and I still manage to buy CDs AND DVDs when they're on sale. Even then my parents help out with my car insurance and I use the money I get from school to pay the rest of that.

If I had money I'd most certainly buy more CDs. I wouldn't buy them because it's wrong to have their MP3s and not buy them, I'd buy them because they were deserving of the money. After all why should I support a one hit wonder? That might make them able to make another CD. If artists want to stay in this game they should make their music worth buying don't you think? I am of the opinion that an artist that would sink in a field of file-sharing isn't an artist that would stay afloat if such a thing didn't exist. How can I justify that statement? If they're popular enough to be downloaded heavily then it's also a given that people like me would buy their records because they deserved the money. i.e. it's not the system that is causing the problems it's the lack of quality and difference in the music or the artists that the producers are letting slip by.

Try this. Name all of the artists you can think of from the 60s and 70s that were popular. Now think of all of the artists from just the 90s. Which group has more people. Group 2 should and not just because it's fresh in your mind. You're not finished yet. Think of all of the people in group two that sound like someone else in group 2 and cross all but one of them off the list. Now which one has more people? Group 2 probably consists of Nirvana, maybe the smashing pumpkins, M.C. Hammer (or Vanilla Ice if you prefer), Eminem, etc. etc. What does group 1 consist of and if you were to do that last step with it how many people would you remove? My guess to the latter is about two. How many did you remove from the first? Like thirty. Basically we've become stagnant and until this past year or so music has seemed to be at a standstill. Maybe this is why music buying had dropped? It'd be interesting to see (other than singles of course) how many people have actually downloaded current songs.

And thanks to Freek-a-Leak!

[iMan]

This debate is ludicrous. Completely.
..... Remember, we are the artist's, record companies' , and Apple's customers and they should treat us as the good customers that we are..and not as criminals.

I agree with you absolutely. Except if the store you are shopping at does not give you what you need - then I believe the easiest way is to shop elsewhere. ITMS is a success for a reason - it is currently superior to anyone. But still; if it does not give you what you want in respect of fair use, quality etc. go spend your time and money other places.
"illegal" copying will be around forever, and I know also Jobs has stated that there is no way to make a unbreakable copyprotection. So Apple is just buying some goodwill at the record companies, the hackers are satisfied for the challenge, and (most of) the general public is happy with the music store.
The one thing that worries me a bit is that I think the DRM also has the purpose of locking people into iTunes and iPod "forever" - as for the moment nice, since they are both the better product in its range, but will they be forever?

Still; for the sake of point of view - I do not endorse illegal filesharing - but I have myself done some of this (for both software and music), but the interesting thing is: if I like the music I actually also tends to buy more of the artist later, if I don't I throw it away (don't really see the point of having a library of thousands of songs I dislike :) Same for software, I tried - and learned a lot of them from pirated versions, but I also ended up buying those programs I liked and found useful - not onlye because it is right, but I am more comfortable with a crisp copy which I can easily update and such later. So point is: Most people actually benefits from filesharing :)

[Multimedia]

How Do You Convert Protected AAC Files To AIFF Files?

I am downloading the FREE daily downloads this week and discovered that I cannot use iTunes to convert them to AIFF files. I thought you could do that to get them to play on regular Audio CD Players. Does anyone know what I need to do to be able to do that?

What's the point of buying AAC files from the iTunes Music Store if you can't convert them to AIFF CDs?

Now I see that Toast 6.0.3 does the conversions to AIFF of the "Protected" files. The converted files are SILENT.

Does Toast circumvent Apple's protection scheme?

NO IT DOES NOT. Apparently QT 6.5.1 KILLED converting DRM AAC files to AIFF.

[Thor74]

I'm all for Apple protecting it's sturf on these DRM-stripping apps.. Some of you mac fanatics are an interesting breed. You live & breath Mac's but seem to be super anti Apple. Guess what folks.. You are the reason Apple will falter & your macs will go by the wayside. Until Apple has a decent market share (not the pathetic 3.5% or less it has now) we should support any & all efforts by Apple that are not scr#wing us consumers over hand and foot. I have not read one reply here on this thread that actually convinced me DMR is a bad thing for us consumers. NOT ONE. I see no way to even waste time arguing the good vs. bad in DMR. For now, it is how Apple has been able to get a large section of the music industry behind it. That has = ipod sales via iTunes and etc. This argument is rediculous for now. When Apple is the monster that Microsoft is, then sure, great, lets chip away with it all we can to make it more fair. You folks are in your own microscopic way eating away at the strength of Apple to grow in marketshare when you support apps that STEAL and make Apple gaurantees to these record companies absolete.

:mad:

[arogge]

Thor74:

"You live & breath Mac's but seem to be super anti Apple."

No, but that SGI server does sound like it's breathing when I'm alone with it at night! :D Apple is a corporation like any other - it wants to make money. While it does some things differently, Apple isn't without problems. Things like moving production of the iPod, LCD displays, eMac, and iMac to Elbonia show that Apple is more interested in increasing profits without maintaining quality. Many Apple products are becoming overpriced commodity items. Apple wants the cheap labor and bulk production of Elbonia without the associated price cutting.

"You are the reason Apple will falter & your macs will go by the wayside."

Wintrolls have been saying that for years, and it still hasn't happened. :p

"Until Apple has a decent market share (not the pathetic 3.5% or less it has now) we should support any & all efforts by Apple that are not scr#wing us consumers over hand and foot."

Like paying premium prices for iPods from Elbonia? :(

"I have not read one reply here on this thread that actually convinced me DMR is a bad thing for us consumers. NOT ONE. I see no way to even waste time arguing the good vs. bad in DMR."

As it relates to consumer products, a DMR is bad - that's a Damaged Material Return. :eek:

[zync]

I'm all for Apple protecting it's sturf on these DRM-stripping apps.. Some of you mac fanatics are an interesting breed. You live & breath Mac's but seem to be super anti Apple. Guess what folks.. You are the reason Apple will falter & your macs will go by the wayside. Until Apple has a decent market share (not the pathetic 3.5% or less it has now) we should support any & all efforts by Apple that are not scr#wing us consumers over hand and foot. I have not read one reply here on this thread that actually convinced me DMR is a bad thing for us consumers. NOT ONE. I see no way to even waste time arguing the good vs. bad in DMR. For now, it is how Apple has been able to get a large section of the music industry behind it. That has = ipod sales via iTunes and etc. This argument is rediculous for now. When Apple is the monster that Microsoft is, then sure, great, lets chip away with it all we can to make it more fair. You folks are in your own microscopic way eating away at the strength of Apple to grow in marketshare when you support apps that STEAL and make Apple gaurantees to these record companies absolete.

:mad:

Apple is a company just like any other. Just because it's Apple doesn't mean I don't have the right to criticize it! I love their products but sometimes I dislike how they run their business. And yes, it is that, their business, but that doesn't mean we can't comment. As of late their business practices have been less than favorable (like completely stopping support for iPods older than 3G, except on this last update which only existed to make money on the newer iTunes songs). They seem to have become slightly more greedy, remember how this past iLife revision left us without free updates to iPhoto? Yes, they are able to do as they like and charge when and how they want but that doesn't mean I should stand by the wayside and not be able to criticize.

And yes, to some people DRM IS bad. If you, as a consumer, don't like to see versatility in the products you buy then you, my friend, are a stupid consumer. If you had the choice to buy an iTMS song at 1.00 with no DRM and .99 with DRM which would you buy? What if they both cost the same?

[davetrow1997]

Theft does not restrict itself to the physical. Ever 'steal' cable television? It's not physically removing the ability of Time Warner to broadcast, replicate, or distribute the signal elsewhere... so in your example it's not theft at all, right?



THEFT, crimes. This word is sometimes used as synonymous with larceny, (q.v.) but it is not so technical. Ayliffe's Pand. 581 2 Swift's Dig. 309.
**** 2. In the Scotch law, this is a proper and technical word, and signifies the secret and felonious abstraction of the property of another for sake of lucre, without his consent. Alison, Princ. Cr. Law of Scotl. 250.

LARCENY - Illegal taking and carrying away of personal property belonging to another with the purpose of depriving the owner of its possession.

The wrongful and fraudulent taking and carrying away by one person of the mere personal goods of another from any place, with a felonious intent to convert them to the taker's use and make them his property without the consent of the owner.

To constitute larceny several ingredients are necessary. The intent of the party must be felonious; he must intend to appropriate the property of another to his own use. If the accused have taken the goods under a claim of right, however unfounded, he has not committed a larceny.

There must be a taking from the possession, actual or implied, of the owner; hence if a man should find goods and appropriate them to his own use, he is not a thief on this account.

There must be a taking against the will of the owner and this may be in some cases where he appears to consent; e.g., if a man suspects another of an intent to steal his property, and in order to try him, leaves it in his way and he takes it, he is guilty of larceny. The taking must be in the county where the criminal is to be tried. But when the taking has been in the county or state and the thief is caught with the stolen property in another county than that where the theft was committed, he may be tried in the county where arrested with the goods, as by construction of law, there is a fresh taking in every county in which the thief carries the stolen property.

There must be an actual carrying away, but the slightest removal, if the goods are completely in the power of the thief, is sufficient; to snatch a diamond from a lady's ear, which is instantly dropped among the curls of her hair, is a sufficient asportation or carrying away.

The property taken must be personal property; a man cannot commit larceny of real estate. For example, an apple, while hanging on the tree where it grew, is real estate, having never been separated from the freehold; it is not larceny therefore, at common law, to pluck an apple from the tree and appropriate it to one's own use, but a mere trespass. If that same apple however, had been separated from the tree by the owner or if shaken by the wind, and while lying on the ground it should be taken with a felonious intent, the taker would commit a larceny, because then it was personal property. Animals ferae naturae, while in the enjoyment of their natural liberty, are not the subjects of larceny. At common law, choses in action are not subjects of larceny.

Larceny is divided in some states into grand and petit larceny depending upon the value of the property stolen.


*************************************

Please everyone read the above *LEGAL* definition of theft. Yes, it *HAS* to be property that was taken away. You cannot abscond with a file, I suppose unless you possibly hack into their server and use a -move- command or something, or physically break in and steal the computer...

[JGowan]

It would be nice if Apple put in their contract that, should they shutdown the service, we will be given a program to strip out the DRM.Nice? That would a HUGE MISTAKE. What kind of confidence what that inspire in their current stockholders, possible future stockholders, music execs? The Recording Industry Big 5 signed on because Apple said "This will work, we are here to STAY!" Failure is not an option in business.

Can you imagine what their competitors or the media would say about that "IF WE EVER SHUT DOWN SERVICE" paragraph you're hoping for? This forum alone would log some of the longest threads ever seen.

Apple is a business. They have to protect what they say.

[dontmatter]

Nice? That would a HUGE MISTAKE. What kind of confidence what that inspire in their current stockholders, possible future stockholders, music execs? The Recording Industry Big 5 signed on because Apple said "This will work, we are here to STAY!" Failure is not an option is business.

Can you imagine what their competitors or the media would say about that "IF WE EVER SHUT DOWN SERVICE" paragraph you're hoping for? This forum alone would log some of the longest threads ever seen.

Apple is a business. They have to protect what they say.

Besides the fact, that anybody smart enough to consider what would happen if the store went under probably knows the DRM would be stripped in no time flat, with our without apple going under.

Not to mention, who says, yeah, they have 70% market share on this, but I'll buy from somebody esle, b/c they're going to go under and the DRM will block me from reading my music? Sure, maybe microsoft will relegate them to 2.5% market share in music, someday, but apple tends to stay around, somehow.

[iMan]

And yes, to some people DRM IS bad. If you, as a consumer, don't like to see versatility in the products you buy then you, my friend, are a stupid consumer. If you had the choice to buy an iTMS song at 1.00 with no DRM and .99 with DRM which would you buy? What if they both cost the same?

The only thing that would be bad with the DRM on iTMS songs is if you as a consumer did not have a choice but to shop there. As a matter of fact you do (like continue to buy CDs for instance), and hence you do not have to let the DRM ruin your life. For other people the DRM is at this point acceptable for the ease of use you get with iTMS.
Maybe there is something to the saying that you can't have it both ways... ;) which is basically what this discussion boils down to; everybody seems to believe just because Apple made this online music store a big hit, they should give us all the benefits. One of the things that actually make this a success in the first place is the DRM - like it or not. Personally I don't like the idea not to be able to play my songs everywhere, but I would probably use the store just out of convenience anyway...

[zync]

The only thing that would be bad with the DRM on iTMS songs is if you as a consumer did not have a choice but to shop there. As a matter of fact you do (like continue to buy CDs for instance), and hence you do not have to let the DRM ruin your life. For other people the DRM is at this point acceptable for the ease of use you get with iTMS.
Maybe there is something to the saying that you can't have it both ways... ;) which is basically what this discussion boils down to; everybody seems to believe just because Apple made this online music store a big hit, they should give us all the benefits. One of the things that actually make this a success in the first place is the DRM - like it or not. Personally I don't like the idea not to be able to play my songs everywhere, but I would probably use the store just out of convenience anyway...

My point is that regardless of other services DRM is bad because it limits the effectiveness of your files. They are less versatile. Also, though we do have choices, there is no option without DRM. The DRM on other services is actually worse and they are all encoded in WMA AFAIK. Thus, we really don't have a choice since we'd also have to install WMP9 just to be able to play the files since iTunes only converts to WMA on the windows side and only if you have WMP9 installed there. And yes, the DRM is what makes it a hit, but not because people are fans of it. DRM makes the iTMS a hit because without DRM the RIAA probably wouldn't have let the Big 5 agree to a contract. And as for myself, I buy CDs.

[sibelius]

Anyway, thank you very much for this quite stimulating discussion (debate?). I don't think we're actually that far apart, we just give different weights to different parts of the issue, and it tips the scale.

Very well... if you would like to end the discussion (debate) I'll honor that. As it turns out we see a very similar end result... just debate on how we're 'getting there'.

I respect the fact that you give to charities... I do the same. I do not approve of the fact that you've pirated music, but I disapprove equally to the music I pirated in the past as well. All we can do is take what we've learned (lessons, I guess) and start from here. Your views on morality, life, and music will change with time... as mine will, so it's more important to keep moving forward.

I hope you do find the time in the future to honor me with your thoughts in future discussions... I really have enjoyed our conversations (and hope we haven't become too much of a pain for other people reading this thread). The big thing here is to always keep an open disucssion. People will always have different points of view, but keeping silent will only hurt everyone involved.

Thanks again for the great discussion. See you soon on the boards. :)

sibelius

[iMan]

... DRM makes the iTMS a hit because without DRM the RIAA probably wouldn't have let the Big 5 agree to a contract. And as for myself, I buy CDs.

My point exactly; for the time being there is no option to the DRM for online music stores. Apple has the most flexible one I've seen, but the option to buy CDs is still around, so for most people the DRM does not really matter; either you accept it and shop at use iTMS, or you don't and continue with your CD purchases. At this point it is quite futile to demand an online music store without some kind og hatch attached to it... and again; not that I necessarily like it, but it is acceptable... (I also still buy CDs for my "treasured" artists - mostly because of the still better quality :)

[zync]

My point exactly; for the time being there is no option to the DRM for online music stores. Apple has the most flexible one I've seen, but the option to buy CDs is still around, so for most people the DRM does not really matter; either you accept it and shop at use iTMS, or you don't and continue with your CD purchases. At this point it is quite futile to demand an online music store without some kind og hatch attached to it... and again; not that I necessarily like it, but it is acceptable... (I also still buy CDs for my "treasured" artists - mostly because of the still better quality :)

Well I don't expect it. It's more of a hopes and dreams sort of thing. I know as long as the RIAA exists DRM will most likely exist if Apple want's to have tunes for the iTMS.

It seems we have an accord.

[Les McQueen]

I don't get this DRM stuff, whats to hack ? If you want to copy a song multiple times just burn it and re rip it, or record it with wire tap or something. Hell you can even plug your computer into a vcr and record it to video tape, and play it back to the computer if you want. Lately i've been recording music off of Rage (late night music program on the weekends. I live in Oz). Set the VCR on long play to tape up to 8 hours of music, hover over the fast forward button the next day, record the songs i like into the ibook with imic. No DRM, no snoopy ISPs, and hey, no RIAA troubles. Long winded proceedure but it works. It's pot luck I know, you don't get to choose what they play. But within 8 hours I usualy find at least 15 songs I like. I mean music is played for free all around us all the time, TV, radio etc. I can't tell the difference between FM quality broadcast and CD. Yeah I know if you want something specific downloads the way to go.

[zync]

I don't get this DRM stuff, whats to hack ? If you want to copy a song multiple times just burn it and re rip it, or record it with wire tap or something. Hell you can even plug your computer into a vcr and record it to video tape, and play it back to the computer if you want. Lately i've been recording music off of Rage (late night music program on the weekends. I live in Oz). Set the VCR on long play to tape up to 8 hours of music, hover over the fast forward button the next day, record the songs i like into the ibook with imic. No DRM, no snoopy ISPs, and hey, no RIAA troubles. Long winded proceedure but it works. It's pot luck I know, you don't get to choose what they play. But within 8 hours I usualy find at least 15 songs I like. I mean music is played for free all around us all the time, TV, radio etc. I can't tell the difference between FM quality broadcast and CD. Yeah I know if you want something specific downloads the way to go.

In one word: quality.

[iggyb]

This debate is ludicrous. Completely.

Let me address the issues at hand with facts...not opinions. I am sure some folks will get upset...but oh well...go find something better to whine about.

Argument 1) "I hate these programs...they only ruin it for the rest of us".
Answer 1) Wrong. Do you think the RIAA and others will stop writing CDs? How easy is it to burn a CD? Real simple...eh? If iTunes goes away (which will unequivocally won't happen since money is being made - its a business model where companies make some nice $$), you still have your CDs you can rip. And people WILL trade the files. Piracy has been around for quite some time. They key is to educate folks to "do the right thing", not treat them as criminals.

Argument 2) "This is stealing from the artists and record companies and they won't be able to feed themselves."
Answer 2) Come off it. Have you seen the margins of the music that is bought? The record companies make a huge margin. They are a little upset that thier business model has been upset. Gone are the days where the record companies' cost for a CD is $4.75 (of which the artist gets between .25 and .50) and they charge $18.99. The markup in music is horrible and the RIAA and friends don't like the writing they see on the wall...they will be making a "reasonable" profit instead of the gluttonous amounts they have been making. They don't like that they no longer have control over distribution. The artists will still make good money. They will tour and come to your town and you will buy a $50 ticket to enjoy thier live music. Do the math ($50 * 10000 (conservative amount of people at an event)) = 1/2 million dollars...per show. Not bad for a day's worth of work. You think they are going to starve? They will continue to make money since that business model will never be replaced. But EMI and Capitol records will unfortunately be squeezed out of thier gluttony. Don't believe me that they are gluttonous about thier margins? This will affect all of you: http://www.theregister.com/2004/04/09/pigopolist_price_hike/.

Argument 3) "I am glad Apple did this...those DRM stripping programs are wrong and violate the law."
Answer 3) Wrong. They do not violate the law. They are actually protected under the fair use clause of Title 17. In fact, Source Forge and its Indian equivalent didn't need to pull down the software. There is a clause under the DMCA that claims "Safe Harbour" (see http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/) and those two companies fit the bill. The reason they pulled it was to escape a law suit. In the good ole' US of A, litigation is used as a weapon against those who have little to no $$. Apple, the RIAA, MPAA, and DirecTV use this to thier advantage. If our system matched some European countries' laws where the loser must pay the winner's legal costs, rest assured, many of these lawsuits would not occur.

Argument 4) "What do I need Fair Use for? Apple gives me all the fair use I want...7 computers, etc."
Answer 4) No...this is your opinion and not a fact...Apple gives you fair use under thier own guidelines and interpretation of the law. If you are strictly a Mac user and a Mac household, then you have nothing to whine about. But if you own several MP3 players and different operating systems, then you are not being given fair use. You are being given a right to listen to music, and under the law of the US Government (case law included), you have a right to listen to this music on any device you wish (see Sony v. Universal Studios http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/sony_v_universal_decision.php). So if someone chooses to strip the DRM to listen on Linux or another device, then that is thier constitutional right to do so.

Argument 5) "Piracy will ruin the companies! I don't want to lose my music!"
Answer 5) I hate to break it to you...but piracy has been around for longer than many of you have been on this earth. Lets take the music industry as example. Since 8 track tapes, people made copies and sold them through the mail and on the streets. Go for a walk down Canal street in New York...and see how many different music CDs you can buy for real cheap from "pirates". Remember cassette tapes? Oh, the copies that were made! And look at the record companies...still making money. Nobody went under. Nobody lost thier massive incomes. Now comes the digital revolution. Based on past history, I think the record companies and executives will still make money with piracy in thier back yard. Don't believe me? Maybe you will believe a couple of studies. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34300-2004Mar29.html and http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/04/12/music.industry.ap/.

Argument 6) "I am so glad Apple brought down these programs. Now they (hackers) will go away and we can continue enjoying our iTunes."
Answer 6) Yes, Apple brought these programs down. Now they created a monster and community to rebuild these programs. All they did was create a challenge to programmers, constitutional advocates, etc. Rest assured the DRM will be cracked, just for the challenge. Its not that hard to reengineer iTunes and get the exact code needed to strip the DRM. It WILL happen...its just a matter of time. Then Apple will switch it up, and the open source development teams will respond. This will not the end and you are kidding yourself to believe that it will. Understand that Apple has some great developers, but they have some great competition out in the real world who are probably alot smarter. Don't believe me? Look at the GAIM project who thwarted Yahoo and MSNs attack on switching up the IM protocol. AOL finally gave in and found it was futile to continue to foil the community. Also look at DirecTV...they sent down electronic countermeasures to attempt to thwart "pirates". The community came back with boot loaders that overcame damaged cards by DirecTV. It became a cat-and-mouse game to people. Many people were engaged just for the challenge to see who was "smarter". This same line of thinking will occur under the Apple regime, and in due time, Apple's management will find this is futile, and will stop the DRM updates. They will lose this battle.

Final thoughts...and now my own opinion. I think Apple should concentrate on the great service and seemless integration with the iPod...and other "players". They should get rid of the DRM because its not going stop or even hinder file trading. People will still burn CDs and will find ways to "crack" thier DRM. Its a pointless waste of brain power and development resources to continue DRM. That money is much better spent in educating thier "customers" on the morals surrounding file sharing and the R&D to make thier products even better. Remember, we are the artist's, record companies' , and Apple's customers and they should treat us as the good customers that we are..and not as criminals.

Very well put! My only comment to this (other then "AMEN BROTHA!") is that I don't think Apple COULD axe DRM and still keep iTMS. The labels would abandon it and iTMS would just disappear.

[Thor74]

And yes, to some people DRM IS bad. If you, as a consumer, don't like to see versatility in the products you buy then you, my friend, are a stupid consumer. If you had the choice to buy an iTMS song at 1.00 with no DRM and .99 with DRM which would you buy? What if they both cost the same?

What planet are you from? An you call me "stupid"?! LOL Too funny. Since we do not live on a planet where you can get iTMS song for $1 without DRM, you point is moot. Period. (Although the free songs for .00 with DRM Apple is giving away every day must also relaly tick you folks off too I bet!) :D

You can wish all day long for it, but it just isn't gonna happen any time soon. Apple needs teh DRM in place. My point is valid, yours is a wish, a dream, a heckle from the balcony stands screaming at Apple for such a small little thing. I have all the choices in the world as a consumer. I can avoid Apple's DRM entirely and choose WMA, or any other audio format out there right now. No Apple executive has a gun to my head telling me to buy iTMS only. You arguments at first had clarity and passion (although I personally did not agree), but when you start calling other people "stupid" just because their opinion differs from your own, you wear the clothes of the court jester pal. But you know.. I value your hostile & passionate heckling.... Go on, yell more and more... IF folks like you get Apple to drop the (in my opinion the already low) .99 cent cost per song to say... .88 cents.. Yahoo for me the 'stupid consumer'! I will still buy the songs, WITH all their DRM glory and simply smile as you heckle from the balcony waiving your arms, beating your chest, and thorwing out the occasional insult. :o

[greg75]

Here's a rumor which is even on-topic, from a VLC thread (http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?threadid=203398) over at the MacNN forums:
Man, look around abit, there are already about 5 forumthreads that explain this. Fairplay isn't working anymore either. Apple switched to newer authentication protocols. The people are already on it, and i was told it will be a breeze to crack it again.

[hexcalibur]

Hoping people weren't taking from my statement that I agree with copyright infringement. I was only saying that the aforementioned poster who said that illicitly downloading songs was "stealing" was incorrect.

I am a faithful user of iTunes music store, and have spent too much hard earned cash on LEGALLY downloading songs. ;o)

Up here in the Wild, Wild North, downloading songs from p2p networks is currently LEGAL. You can't *upload,* but you can snag anything you find. This strange, half-assed situation also describes the current state of pot laws here. It isn't illegal to buy marijuana, but it's highly illegal to sell it. Go figure.

This gets to a sometimes-overlooked point the RIAA lobby wants you to ignore. Filesharing is "illegal" in the US because the government decided it was. They could change the law if they felt, um, compelled to by voters.

Yeah, and pigs could fly -- I know, it will never happen. More likely, the Canadian goverment will get bought off to change OUR laws to close the download loophole.

Since Canadian music publishers are dragging their heels about allowing iTMS to come to Canada, I'm unable to give 'em my $0.99 for their musical offerings, and use the excellent Acquisition app instead.

Just thought I'd point out US laws don't apply to all of us here on Planet Earth.

[dekator]

What planet are you from? An you call me "stupid"?! LOL Too funny. Since we do not live on a planet where you can get iTMS song for $1 without DRM, you point is moot. Period. (Although the free songs for .00 with DRM Apple is giving away every day must also relaly tick you folks off too I bet!) :D


Well, I don't think calling anyone stupid helps, but I think zync has a point. It is completely irrelevant whether you can get an iTMS song without DRM or not. It's about the principle. And quite simply, I, for example, and certainly many, many others won't buy a DRM'ed song. Period. Well, you say Apple doesn't care? I don't think so, because if there was a way to sell songs without DRM, Apple would make incredibly much more money. So, there is a vision, and I think it's not too unrealistic, that DRM is abolished once and for all. Look at Apple's history. They've done many things ppl called 'impossible', 'from a different planet' etc. Try to look to the future, envision things, think possibilities, they may become real sooner than you think. You should know this as an Apple user. Or didn't Apple do the things they did on your planet ? They sure did on earth... ;)

[iMan]

Well, I don't think calling anyone stupid helps, but I think zync has a point. It is completely irrelevant whether you can get an iTMS song without DRM or not. It's about the principle. And quite simply, I, for example, and certainly many, many others won't buy a DRM'ed song. Period. Well, you say Apple doesn't care? I don't think so, because if there was a way to sell songs without DRM, Apple would make incredibly much more money. So, there is a vision, and I think it's not too unrealistic, that DRM is abolished once and for all. Look at Apple's history. They've done many things ppl called 'impossible', 'from a different planet' etc. Try to look to the future, envision things, think possibilities, they may become real sooner than you think. You should know this as an Apple user. Or didn't Apple do the things they did on your planet ? They sure did on earth... ;)

Well, me I do not like the DRM any better than you, but my realistic point of view is that we are stuck with this system for a long time. I do not think that Apple would see any surge in revenue either if the DRM is dropped. Most people are actually quite ignorant to this fact as long as it works and is simple to use - which iTMS certainly are.

One other thing that was pointed out for me: Why this sudden frenzy about being able to use the music till the end of time? When we bought LPs we never even thought of it. Now I only buy CDs, and even bought a lot of the music again because of the better playback quality (my records were not always treated nice :) Never thought that the record industry or anyone should be responsible that I was not able to use my already bought records... No guarantees was made when the CD was introduced neither that this system would always be around. There were even research that CDs would "selfdestroy" in a certain amount of time. Most people didn't care. Now all of a sudden everyone is in a frenzy that they will not be able to play their iTunes songs some time in the future - even though the technical quality of the goods for the first time is definitely poorer than the last system. Given the fact that CDs are only about 20 years old now, the realistic perspective of the "iTunes-regime" is at 10-15 years maximum, before a new revolution happens. And we start buying all the music once more :D
Makes me wonder why we bother...

[zync]

What planet are you from? An you call me "stupid"?! LOL Too funny. Since we do not live on a planet where you can get iTMS song for $1 without DRM, you point is moot. Period. (Although the free songs for .00 with DRM Apple is giving away every day must also relaly tick you folks off too I bet!) :D

You can wish all day long for it, but it just isn't gonna happen any time soon. Apple needs teh DRM in place. My point is valid, yours is a wish, a dream, a heckle from the balcony stands screaming at Apple for such a small little thing. I have all the choices in the world as a consumer. I can avoid Apple's DRM entirely and choose WMA, or any other audio format out there right now. No Apple executive has a gun to my head telling me to buy iTMS only. You arguments at first had clarity and passion (although I personally did not agree), but when you start calling other people "stupid" just because their opinion differs from your own, you wear the clothes of the court jester pal. But you know.. I value your hostile & passionate heckling.... Go on, yell more and more... IF folks like you get Apple to drop the (in my opinion the already low) .99 cent cost per song to say... .88 cents.. Yahoo for me the 'stupid consumer'! I will still buy the songs, WITH all their DRM glory and simply smile as you heckle from the balcony waiving your arms, beating your chest, and thorwing out the occasional insult. :o


Originally, no, I was not calling you stupid. But for you to make such a garish attempt at calling me no better than a "jester" or "heckler," I should indeed ascribe that label unto you. My point, which you so obviously missed, was that among such services of which you are the consumer (this obviously being online services only) the laws of consumerism, as in any capitalist system, is driven by demand. In this case, as my point commenced, the demands of consumers should be for less-restrictive DRM, or even the altogether stripping of DRM, from the companies which hold the supply. As consumers, our demand is always a higher level of quality at a lower price. In this case, that is what I'm speaking about. I'm most certainly not a heckler, sir, and if you would take but some consideration into your reply you would find yourself no better than one.

I find it quite funny that irony has born this down upon you. However, I find it funnier that you see the image of a consumer speaking against - not throwing stones - a multinational corporation as a stupid thing. This kind of rationale is what makes boycotting outrages to society useless, instead of doing what they were intent on doing. If we, as Americans, didn't see this sort of thing as useless then perhaps people like Nike (and yes Nike is considered a person as it's a corporation) wouldn't be using what's essentially slave labor to turn a high profit. I'm sorry to be so rude, but it was blatant that you didn't take such care in your reply anyway so why should I afford you the same respect I afford anyone else on these forums? Your reply disgusts me, and continued messages such as these make your persona disgust me as well.

[michaelal]

Well, I don't think calling anyone stupid helps, but I think zync has a point. It is completely irrelevant whether you can get an iTMS song without DRM or not. It's about the principle. And quite simply, I, for example, and certainly many, many others won't buy a DRM'ed song. Period. Well, you say Apple doesn't care? I don't think so, because if there was a way to sell songs without DRM, Apple would make incredibly much more money. So, there is a vision, and I think it's not too unrealistic, that DRM is abolished once and for all. Look at Apple's history. They've done many things ppl called 'impossible', 'from a different planet' etc. Try to look to the future, envision things, think possibilities, they may become real sooner than you think. You should know this as an Apple user. Or didn't Apple do the things they did on your planet ? They sure did on earth... ;)

I totally agree. I have refrained and will continue to refrain from purchasing any songs that have protection in them. Who knows how and when I will use a song that I purchase. It could be today, it could be 10 years from now. I have gone back to vinyl LPs that I purchase 20 years ago and ripped songs off these to use in a new way in the digital world. They are still relevent to me and I want any digital music I purchase now to be relevant in another 20 years whether I use them then or not. I payed the money. It should be my choice. :o

[arogge]

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/may04/05-03DigitalRightsManagementTechnologyPR.asp

[applebum]

I totally agree. I have refrained and will continue to refrain from purchasing any songs that have protection in them. Who knows how and when I will use a song that I purchase. It could be today, it could be 10 years from now. I have gone back to vinyl LPs that I purchase 20 years ago and ripped songs off these to use in a new way in the digital world. They are still relevent to me and I want any digital music I purchase now to be relevant in another 20 years whether I use them then or not. I payed the money. It should be my choice. :o

Hmmmm let me see if I can get this straight, you find the vinyl relevant today. When you bought that vinyl, the medium itself was the DRM if you will. Even if you had 5 turntables back then, you could only play that vinyl on one of them at a time. If you went to another room and wanted to hear your music, you had to turn up the volume - you turned it up really loudly if you wanted to share your music with everyone in the house. Today, it is the same way. You can't take that vinyl with you and play it in the car, or on your computer at work. So you have to update it by ......gasp....making a CD.

Now your DRMed iTunes music has much more flexibility than that vinyl originally did. You can play it on 5 computers - simultaneously if you want. If you leave a room, turn it on in the computer in the next room. You want to hear it at work, just turn it on there (provided you have transferred it there). What, you say you want to hear it in your car? Then you ...gasp... burn it to CD - just like you did the vinyl. Once you have it on CD, it is as relevant as that vinyl is and will be viable until the medium changes once again.

Now, if you say iTunes music will be less relevant in the future due to poorer quality from the start, that is another argument which you didn't make. It is just a silly argument to not buy due to DRM when that music is still much more flexible than any medium we had in the past.

[zync]

Now, if you say iTunes music will be less relevant in the future due to poorer quality from the start, that is another argument which you didn't make. It is just a silly argument to not buy due to DRM when that music is still much more flexible than any medium we had in the past.

Of course you are excepting CDs since, as we all know, songs ripped off of them can be of higher quality and have no DRM. Therefore, you just helped make our point. You said it would be silly to avoid buying DRMed songs since they are more flexible than the media we've had in the past. However, CDs are still more flexible than DRMed iTMS songs, thus it would be silly to buy the latter instead of CDs. :D

[iMan]

Of course you are excepting CDs since, as we all know, songs ripped off of them can be of higher quality and have no DRM. Therefore, you just helped make our point. You said it would be silly to avoid buying DRMed songs since they are more flexible than the media we've had in the past. However, CDs are still more flexible than DRMed iTMS songs, thus it would be silly to buy the latter instead of CDs. :D

Exactly. The fuzz about this DRM thing is way off in my opinion; CDs generally offer higher quality music and no DRM (though at a stiffer price and less convenience), but if the iTMS DRM is such a pain, why don't people just stop whining and stick with the CDs? Why? Because they want the music cheaper (or rather free...) and the flexibility of the iTMS. Well, apparently one can't have it all ways - for now :)

[iMan]

My point, which you so obviously missed, was that among such services of which you are the consumer (this obviously being online services only) the laws of consumerism, as in any capitalist system, is driven by demand. In this case, as my point commenced, the demands of consumers should be for less-restrictive DRM, or even the altogether stripping of DRM, from the companies which hold the supply. As consumers, our demand is always a higher level of quality at a lower price. In this case, that is what I'm speaking about. I'm most certainly not a heckler, sir, and if you would take but some consideration into your reply you would find yourself no better than one.

But your logic fails a bit, doesn't it? The demand for iTMS is pretty high, I would say, so the laws of consumerism is very much in function. As for those (few?) that does not conform to the liberal restrictions imposed by the DRM, those should neither have any trouble finding themselves alternatives...
If noone actually found this product interesting though - that would of course either make the record companies / Apple loosen the DRM or drop the whole idea of online music. The important thing for me, is that I actually have a choice of where to play my music - which I do have by being able to burn CDs from iTunes (actually more so as with the current copyright controlled CDs on the market - which is really a pain since one does not have any real choices).

[zync]

Exactly. The fuzz about this DRM thing is way off in my opinion; CDs generally offer higher quality music and no DRM (though at a stiffer price and less convenience), but if the iTMS DRM is such a pain, why don't people just stop whining and stick with the CDs? Why? Because they want the music cheaper (or rather free...) and the flexibility of the iTMS. Well, apparently one can't have it all ways - for now :)

True, which is why I buy CDs only! I do try to download the free iTMS songs but I'll still strip them from their DRM. That however is a more grey area.

But your logic fails a bit, doesn't it? The demand for iTMS is pretty high, I would say, so the laws of consumerism is very much in function. As for those (few?) that does not conform to the liberal restrictions imposed by the DRM, those should neither have any trouble finding themselves alternatives...
If noone actually found this product interesting though - that would of course either make the record companies / Apple loosen the DRM or drop the whole idea of online music. The important thing for me, is that I actually have a choice of where to play my music - which I do have by being able to burn CDs from iTunes (actually more so as with the current copyright controlled CDs on the market - which is really a pain since one does not have any real choices).

As for this you missed a critical point that I stated. The demands SHOULD be for less restrictive DRM. And, technically, though not many have complained, the demand, though not stated, IS for less restrictive DRM. The point is that this is not a stated demand by everyone but no one would take a more restrictive file over a less restricted file if offered the same price and convenience. So really, as always, my logic did not fail. :D

[iMan]

... the demand, though not stated, IS for less restrictive DRM. The point is that this is not a stated demand by everyone but no one would take a more restrictive file over a less restricted file if offered the same price and convenience. So really, as always, my logic did not fail. :D

I am sorry, but it did; you are implying that the alternatives are equal - apart from the DRM. Unfortunately there are no current alternative to the iTMS without DRM. You may wish and demand all you want - but point is (this IS where we disagree) that it is not possible, neither necessary for Apple to remove the DRM.
You may want to benefit from the iTMS - but the price you pay for the lower cost and convenience is a restricted file. There is no unrestricted file to choose from - and quite frankly I do not believe it will be for a long time (unfortunately). For me: I don't like it too much, but it still is a lot better that copy-controlled CDs (since it is pretty easy to copy the files).
What worries me more is actually the possibility that the iTMS (and the like) is going to be such a success that CDs are dropped altogether, without the possiblity to actually get a noncompressed version of the music. That is a real step back...

[zync]

I am sorry, but it did; you are implying that the alternatives are equal - apart from the DRM. Unfortunately there are no current alternative to the iTMS without DRM. You may wish and demand all you want - but point is (this IS where we disagree) that it is not possible, neither necessary for Apple to remove the DRM.
You may want to benefit from the iTMS - but the price you pay for the lower cost and convenience is a restricted file. There is no unrestricted file to choose from - and quite frankly I do not believe it will be for a long time (unfortunately). For me: I don't like it too much, but it still is a lot better that copy-controlled CDs (since it is pretty easy to copy the files).
What worries me more is actually the possibility that the iTMS (and the like) is going to be such a success that CDs are dropped altogether, without the possiblity to actually get a noncompressed version of the music. That is a real step back...

I am sorry to you. My logic never fails and we don't disagree there. In fact, we do not disagree at all! I never said, nor implied, that there is an alternative to the iTMS. In fact, if there is anything we actually disagree about it is what I explicitly stated many, many posts ago. I said that there are no alternatives, however neither case is a requirement of my point to stand on it's own merit. I said that the demand should, and indeed is, for less restrictive DRM. I also agree that it is not possible for Apple to remove the DRM.

Also, I have made no implications, especially as to the availability of alternative services. As a matter of fact, I didn't even imply the existence of any alternative service, as I view the iTMS as being the best service in it's class. Simply put, whether another service exists or not, the law of demand still applies. As consumers, the demand is always for higher quality at a lower price and this doesn't change whether there is one provider or many.

[iMan]

I am sorry to you. My logic never fails and we don't disagree there. In fact, we do not disagree at all! I never said, nor implied, that there is an alternative to the iTMS. In fact, if there is anything we actually disagree about it is what I explicitly stated many, many posts ago. I said that there are no alternatives, however neither case is a requirement of my point to stand on it's own merit. I said that the demand should, and indeed is, for less restrictive DRM. I also agree that it is not possible for Apple to remove the DRM.

As consumers, the demand is always for higher quality at a lower price and this doesn't change whether there is one provider or many.

Well, I still claim we are of different opinion - or at least of different principle :)
Since your logic never fails; why is there a demand for iTMS in the first place; this is actually a service that provide less quality at a lower price - i.e. it should hence fail according to the "consumer law" - and you should be a lot more concerned of the quality of the tracks (which is lousy compared to the CD alternative) in the first place than the DRM part.
Your argument could very well also be that music should be distributed free and with no restrictions (if we take it a bit further on principle). This conceptual idea - as wonderful as it might seem - is however not going to be an industry standard. It might be a way to promote unknown artist and good for special purposes, but your arguments fail to comply to a business model (by that I mean someone is making an effort to distribute and market the music inbetween the artist and the consumer). To own an original of this final product (if it is an LP, CD or a DRMed digital file) is what they sell. It is quite easy to copy all of them, but there is still an original that is (for some) a novelty to own. If your argument should be correct, we should also be entitled to an exact copy of the LP and CD if we wanted to copy it (for personal use of course). The DRM allows you unlimited possibilities to easily create personalized copies of your tunes on CD - with basically unhearable loss of quality (and lets face the fact; if making such a copy you would not play it on your most expensive stereosystem anyways).

I still say your logic fail :) and mine prevail; the demand should be for better quality of music (both performance and the actual file), better availability and lower pricing. The DRM part I agree I don't fancy too much, but it does not hinder me enjoying the music - for the time being.

[zync]

Well, I still claim we are of different opinion - or at least of different principle :)
Since your logic never fails; why is there a demand for iTMS in the first place; this is actually a service that provide less quality at a lower price - i.e. it should hence fail according to the "consumer law" - and you should be a lot more concerned of the quality of the tracks (which is lousy compared to the CD alternative) in the first place than the DRM part.
Your argument could very well also be that music should be distributed free and with no restrictions (if we take it a bit further on principle). This conceptual idea - as wonderful as it might seem - is however not going to be an industry standard. It might be a way to promote unknown artist and good for special purposes, but your arguments fail to comply to a business model (by that I mean someone is making an effort to distribute and market the music inbetween the artist and the consumer). To own an original of this final product (if it is an LP, CD or a DRMed digital file) is what they sell. It is quite easy to copy all of them, but there is still an original that is (for some) a novelty to own. If your argument should be correct, we should also be entitled to an exact copy of the LP and CD if we wanted to copy it (for personal use of course). The DRM allows you unlimited possibilities to easily create personalized copies of your tunes on CD - with basically unhearable loss of quality (and lets face the fact; if making such a copy you would not play it on your most expensive stereosystem anyways).

I still say your logic fail :) and mine prevail; the demand should be for better quality of music (both performance and the actual file), better availability and lower pricing. The DRM part I agree I don't fancy too much, but it does not hinder me enjoying the music - for the time being.

My logic has still not failed :) You are however getting closer to what I'm saying, however you leave out a factor then seem to remember it. The reason the iTMS has customers is because of convenience. Think about it this way (and you are correct also about better quality files, BTW) if it were possible for the iTMS to let you download the songs and a few days later you get the CD of whatever you purchased, wouldn't you go for that over the current form of the iTMS? I would chance to think that no one would take the old form of the iTMS over the new one.

Yes, as I said the demand is for better quality files (exempli gratia higher bitrate and less DRM) at a better price. If quality goes up and the price stays the same that satisfies consumers. If quality stays the same and price drops that also satisfies consumers. Without the need for multiple producers or even a thought in someone's mind, this is the way demand works for consumers. Remember, however, I'm not talking about demand in a strictly supply/demand sense.

[iMan]

The reason the iTMS has customers is because of convenience. Think about it this way (and you are correct also about better quality files, BTW) if it were possible for the iTMS to let you download the songs and a few days later you get the CD of whatever you purchased, wouldn't you go for that over the current form of the iTMS? I would chance to think that no one would take the old form of the iTMS over the new one.

Your laws does not apply as you wish - I am sorry: One example; if the quality/price factor would be the driving force - why is 95% of the computer users on the Windows platform? ;)

Another one: Why does Britney Spears (or the like) sell more CDs than Classical Greats as Bethoveen - given that the price of the CD is usually in the favour of the classics, and the quality of the music should be indisputable... :)

And why oh why do people buy burgers at McDonalds???

Point is; consumers buy crap whenever they see it. Some even pay good money for it. The wish to buy has little to do with quality or price, and a lot to do with other factors - like convenience, formfactor, availability, affordability etc. (of course quality never goes out of style, but we are talking about the general public here).

Your argument seems to me to demand another form of iTMS and reality than exists - and the iTMS+mail CD thing is just like ordering a pizza on the door and expecting to get a voucher for a finer restaurant in the mail later. Sorry that is just of course not gonna work (although, I would not mind if it did - but remember there is people needing to earn their living inbetween here. give them at least some credit...)

[zync]

Your laws does not apply as you wish - I am sorry: One example; if the quality/price factor would be the driving force - why is 95% of the computer users on the Windows platform? ;)

Another one: Why does Britney Spears (or the like) sell more CDs than Classical Greats as Bethoveen - given that the price of the CD is usually in the favour of the classics, and the quality of the music should be indisputable... :)

And why oh why do people buy burgers at McDonalds???

Point is; consumers buy crap whenever they see it. Some even pay good money for it. The wish to buy has little to do with quality or price, and a lot to do with other factors - like convenience, formfactor, availability, affordability etc. (of course quality never goes out of style, but we are talking about the general public here).

Your argument seems to me to demand another form of iTMS and reality than exists - and the iTMS+mail CD thing is just like ordering a pizza on the door and expecting to get a voucher for a finer restaurant in the mail later. Sorry that is just of course not gonna work (although, I would not mind if it did - but remember there is people needing to earn their living inbetween here. give them at least some credit...)

Let us refresh ourselves of the original argument here. I do not believe that any of these hypothetical situations exist. I'm just saying DRM is too restrictive for my taste, and that of many other people.

In keeping with that I will give you the answers you seek :D:

I. Windows Systems vs. Alternatives
1. Windows isn't that bad of an operating system
2. It's usually bundled with PC's anyway and many people don't even know how to install different operating systems
3. Windows/PC Systems are much cheaper than their mac counterparts

II. Britney Spears and the like vs. Classical Composers
1. We live in a pop culture where the people who have kids already don't know good music and rarely like classical music
2. These people's children most certainly may not even know Bach, Beethoven, Handel, Mozart, Chopin, (didn't realize I was alphabetizing the list :)), Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Palestrina, Pachabel, etc. (I'm 20 and these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head....how many other 20 year olds do you think can name more than a few of the ones on my small list? How many do you think can think of a single one outside my list off the top of their head? That pretty much answers that question :D)
3. How many people do you know that even listen to purely instrumental music that isn't from the soundtrack to something?

III. McDonald's vs. Real Food
1. Convenience, convenience, convenience....
2. The food actually tastes pretty good (usually)...and it beats Burger King :)
3. It's extremely cheap as long as you don't get some gargantuan burger
4. It's fast, that's why they call it fast food.

This was actually a fun game :) I hope that you realized why people do these things in the first place. Also, remember that anything having to do with people has to be simplified to a general sense, as in generally people behave like this. You have to remember, however, that people, in general, are very, very stupid.

[iMan]

This was actually a fun game :) I hope that you realized why people do these things in the first place. Also, remember that anything having to do with people has to be simplified to a general sense, as in generally people behave like this. You have to remember, however, that people, in general, are very, very stupid.

This IS a fun game :)
And you are proving my point; the general demand is rarely for better quality/lower price alone - but rather for a lot of other reasons, amongst which convenience is one of the major factors of our time.

1. Most people finds the Windows system quite adequate, and the convenience (i.e. the compatibility with others, availability of resellers and lower priced systems) is a major factor of preference. As for quality the Mac system is undoubtedly better (even from a objective pow) - but appears to be more expensive (mainly because you get more built in features imo). Conclusion: People generally does not demand highest quality, but goes for the mainstream alternative - even though it really has lots of restrictions - it just doesn't appear so (MS software is generally the least compatible with others - it's just so dominating).

2. Most people prefers the "braindead" music like Britney Spears over the more complex (not only Classical, but even complex and quality rock/pop music: i.e. Yes, Pink Floyd, the Who - or even Jazz) out of convenience. It is easier to relate to - hence easier "available" to the main public. Even though you probably pay more for the new Britney album than a legacy Floyd recording - and the quality of the music and recording is doubtlessly in the latters favor - people actually buy the Britney album, well knowingly they probably "throw it away" in a couple of years. Conclusion: generally people "don't care" for quality and price; they want convenient fun right now.

3. Most people buy McDonalds out of convenience (I am not taking a debate of fast food preferences since the point applies to the industry. That said, Burger King will always rule ;) ). The food generally tastes ok - and the same wherever you go in the world - i.e. it is always "safe harbour" - no worries. It is not particularly cheap, and not particularly tasty or healthy - but it IS convenient. So the conclusion: generally people prefer the convenience over quality and price - and what is good for them.

Overall conclusion - and why iTMS WILL be a success even with the restrictions imposed given the DRM:
Most people find it convenient to use, since you 1) buy only the tracks you want, 2) get it on your computer right now, 3) can easily transfer it to any of five computers (which is more than enough for most of us) or share over a network, 4) can easily use the songs on the worlds favourite mp3 player, 5) can easily burn favourite songs on CDs to friends (I mean to use in your car), 6) get acceptable quality (at least over downloading via P2P).
For most people; the quality is good enough, the DRM imposes no limitations whatsoever and iTunes offer the most convenient user experience ever. There is currently no reason why the iTMS should dramatically change its DRM (or other features) other than continue to develope the user experience and back catalogue.

As goes for the original argument that the DRM is too restrictive for some peoples needs - I accept that. But those people are in minority (like the Hi-Fi freaks), and they still have the option to buy CDs. There will always be some tough choices, and to twist your argument a little (to make it more viable in my opinion): Would you be willing to pay, let's say $1.50/track for an uncompressed, non DRM alternative over $0.99 for the regular iTMS available today? (figures just for illustration purposes - point: will people pay more for better quality over convenience (being smaller filesize) - given the choice).

[zync]

This IS a fun game :)
And you are proving my point; the general demand is rarely for better quality/lower price alone - but rather for a lot of other reasons, amongst which convenience is one of the major factors of our time.

1. Most people finds the Windows system quite adequate, and the convenience (i.e. the compatibility with others, availability of resellers and lower priced systems) is a major factor of preference. As for quality the Mac system is undoubtedly better (even from a objective pow) - but appears to be more expensive (mainly because you get more built in features imo). Conclusion: People generally does not demand highest quality, but goes for the mainstream alternative - even though it really has lots of restrictions - it just doesn't appear so (MS software is generally the least compatible with others - it's just so dominating).

2. Most people prefers the "braindead" music like Britney Spears over the more complex (not only Classical, but even complex and quality rock/pop music: i.e. Yes, Pink Floyd, the Who - or even Jazz) out of convenience. It is easier to relate to - hence easier "available" to the main public. Even though you probably pay more for the new Britney album than a legacy Floyd recording - and the quality of the music and recording is doubtlessly in the latters favor - people actually buy the Britney album, well knowingly they probably "throw it away" in a couple of years. Conclusion: generally people "don't care" for quality and price; they want convenient fun right now.

3. Most people buy McDonalds out of convenience (I am not taking a debate of fast food preferences since the point applies to the industry. That said, Burger King will always rule ;) ). The food generally tastes ok - and the same wherever you go in the world - i.e. it is always "safe harbour" - no worries. It is not particularly cheap, and not particularly tasty or healthy - but it IS convenient. So the conclusion: generally people prefer the convenience over quality and price - and what is good for them.

Overall conclusion - and why iTMS WILL be a success even with the restrictions imposed given the DRM:
Most people find it convenient to use, since you 1) buy only the tracks you want, 2) get it on your computer right now, 3) can easily transfer it to any of five computers (which is more than enough for most of us) or share over a network, 4) can easily use the songs on the worlds favourite mp3 player, 5) can easily burn favourite songs on CDs to friends (I mean to use in your car), 6) get acceptable quality (at least over downloading via P2P).
For most people; the quality is good enough, the DRM imposes no limitations whatsoever and iTunes offer the most convenient user experience ever. There is currently no reason why the iTMS should dramatically change its DRM (or other features) other than continue to develope the user experience and back catalogue.

As goes for the original argument that the DRM is too restrictive for some peoples needs - I accept that. But those people are in minority (like the Hi-Fi freaks), and they still have the option to buy CDs. There will always be some tough choices, and to twist your argument a little (to make it more viable in my opinion): Would you be willing to pay, let's say $1.50/track for an uncompressed, non DRM alternative over $0.99 for the regular iTMS available today? (figures just for illustration purposes - point: will people pay more for better quality over convenience (being smaller filesize) - given the choice).

Two things before I make my point:
1. I knew your like Burger King....how could you....disgusting....mayo does not belong on a hamburger...and they could at least keep it from mingling with the ketchup....
2. Yes I'd pay that 1.50 if two conditions were met: I didn't have dialup and I only wanted that one song. I always prefer to have the CD itself in most cases.


You're thinking of this in the right way except the demand of consumers is not linear. They don't always take the cheaper route. You have to consider various factors....and yes, a lot of the time people choose the cheaper alternative, however, they still would like to spend the least and get the most. This is always on a person's mind. Remember "give them a hand and they'll take the whole arm"? That's basically it.

Oh and yes, this is a fun game :) and I prefer incubus, Hendrix, Clapton, and many, many, many other bands :D