PlayFair - Back Online

[MacRumors]

PlayFair is back online (http://www.playfair.org/) with a new name (Hymn) as well as legal support.

As previously reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/04/20040405064947.shtml), Playfair allows users to strip the Digital Rights Protection from protected iTunes songs without re-encoding, thus preserving the original quality. The new version reportedly supports iTunes 4.5.

Apple has taken a strong legal stance against such applications, and has shut down (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/04/20040410230756.shtml) previous hosts.

[Mord]

i'm downloading this and stashing it for future use.

if only someone did that with the chud tools that let ibooks be overclocked via software sigh

[soosy]

Now that you can no longer use iTMS songs in iPhoto slideshows or iMovies, I actually have an interest in looking into this.

[york2600]

Did anyone really think iTunes 4.5 was going to kill fairplay.

[rog]

Didn't work for me on my 4.5 files. It says it can't open them. It converts earlier version files and they seem to play but I haven't actually listened to any full song yet. Glad to know that now I can archive these files without DRM and use them without hitting the authorized computer ceiling at some point in the future should something happen to one of my macs such that I can't de-authorize one before it dies. I have no intention of sharing these files. In fact, I will still keep the DRM ones in iTunes and on my iPod.

[AhmedFaisal]

If I decide to use a Roku Soundbridge for music I purchase its no one else's business but mine. Its not Steve's business, its not RIAA's business. They get my money for music, so they should shut up and be happy with it because that is all I am willing to give them. What I do with an item I purchase is my decision alone if RIAA don't like that they can die. They act like they are Rolls Royce who can choose its customers, but guess what RIAA, you are Jugo and if I decide to be nice and give you money for your crap you should thank me, even if I just take the CD and piss on it! Take the money and SHUT UP(TM)!
Cheers,

Ahmed

[Gus]

I had a long, well-thought out reply about this, but after reading Ahmed's post, I don't think that I'll bother. Those of you that are convinced that your rights are somehow being oppressed by Apple's DRM will not be convinced otherwise. I mean, really, 5 computers and 7 burns (more really, if you take the time) and this isn't enough for you? If you need more than that, I'm sorry, but you are probably violating copyright law anyway.

Forget it. I'm not wasting any more time with this.

Regards,
Gus

[AhmedFaisal]

I had a long, well-thought out reply about this, but after reading Ahmed's post, I don't think that I'll bother. Those of you that are convinced that your rights are somehow being oppressed by Apple's DRM will not be convinced otherwise. I mean, really, 5 computers and 7 burns (more really, if you take the time) and this isn't enough for you? If you need more than that, I'm sorry, but you are probably violating copyright law anyway.

Good, because you simply don't get it. Lets just say I don't want to use an iPod. Lets say I don't want to hook my Mac to my multimedia system in the livingroom but want to use a streaming player like aforementioned SoundBridge. Say, I want to use a dedicated in-dash car AAC player and not an iPod in my car or boat or wherever. Lets say I want to use music I buy for home movies.
None of that works with Apple's DRM. And that is why I crack it.
Regards,

Ahmed

[bpd115]

Now that you can no longer use iTMS songs in iPhoto slideshows or iMovies, I actually have an interest in looking into this.
:confused:

Uhm...directly from Apple's website....

"Best of all, you can use any song you purchase to accompany an iPhoto slide show, play behind a motion menu in iDVD or set the proper mood in your newest iMovie project."

[iBook]

If iTunes will burn the mp4 files on to a CD as an .aiff so it can be played in a CD player, don't you have free access to your music?

Or is the loss in quality so great?

If you use an application like FairPlay, doesn't it simply "convert" an .mp4 into an .mp3?

IMHO, Apple has provided the flexibility we need. I don't care for the RIAA tactics anymore than many of the people in this forum, but they do have a right to defend their intellectual property. And if Apple wants to operate iTunes, it's going to have to give greater credence to what the record labels want vs. what we want.

[elo]

Good, because you simply don't get it. Lets just say I don't want to use an iPod. Lets say I don't want to hook my Mac to my multimedia system in the livingroom but want to use a streaming player like aforementioned SoundBridge. Say, I want to use a dedicated in-dash car AAC player and not an iPod in my car or boat or wherever. Lets say I want to use music I buy for home movies.
None of that works with Apple's DRM. And that is why I crack it.
Regards,

Ahmed

I think it's you who doesn't get it. If you want to use licensed music for a purpose not in the agreement, then you shouldn't have made the agreement. A person is only as good as his or her word.

elo

[nagromme]

Now that you can no longer use iTMS songs in iPhoto slideshows or iMovies, I actually have an interest in looking into this.

The new iTunes installer states clearly before you install that if you wish to use your music in other apps, you must ALSO download the new QuickTime. Then you're all set again.

[1macker1]

Cool, i'm downloading this as soon as i get home.

[AhmedFaisal]

If iTunes will burn the mp4 files on to a CD as an .aiff so it can be played in a CD player, don't you have free access to your music?

Or is the loss in quality so great?

If you use an application like FairPlay, doesn't it simply "convert" an .mp4 into an .mp3?

The loss in quality, not even talking about the amount of time it takes, to burn and rerip is tremendous. The effect was once described in a good analogy. If you take an image of 800x600 pixels and blow it up to 8000x6000 and then convert it back to 800x600 the picture will show a significant loss in quality, just try it out. Same happens when you burn and rerip. What PlayFair/Hymn does is simply remove the DRM wrapper from the AAC, no conversion nothing, just removing the DRM, meaning no loss in quality.
Cheers,

Ahmed

[Tulse]

I think it's you who doesn't get it. If you want to use licensed music for a purpose not in the agreement, then you shouldn't have made the agreement. A person is only as good as his or her word.

Amen. It is bizarre to me that people seem to think they have a natural right to music. If you don't like the terms of the contract, don't agree to it -- it's really that simple. Any other argument is simply rationalization for theft.

That said, it looks like the hymn folks may be on a bit firmer legal ground with this version -- it preserves the ID of the original purchaser in the cracked file, which would make sharing a file over a P2P network much less attractive.

[ALoLA]

Good, because you simply don't get it. Lets just say I don't want to use an iPod. Lets say I don't want to hook my Mac to my multimedia system in the livingroom but want to use a streaming player like aforementioned SoundBridge. Say, I want to use a dedicated in-dash car AAC player and not an iPod in my car or boat or wherever. Lets say I want to use music I buy for home movies.
None of that works with Apple's DRM. And that is why I crack it.
Regards,

Ahmed

If you wanted to do all that, wouldn't it have been easier just to buy the CD then? That way, you could rip it, without DRM, into any format you want.

I think many of us here don't want any additional roadblocks for iTMS, should software from PlayFair and others get the RIAA' s attention.

[nagromme]

As for this app... I strongly oppose piracy, and Apple HAS to do the same. (For the sake of iPod sales, for the sake of relationships with labels whose power has not yet vanished, and as a leader in the new legal download marker in general.) I can see why Apple has to fight this kind of thing. I would hope that the uses made of such an app is almost never piracy--but sadly I suspect the reverse.

For the HONEST people using the app, it makes sense to me, and I hope it can be kept legal and not shut down. Sure, you can get the same quality and strip DRM by re-ripping from CD as Apple Lossless (or the more universal WAV). But aside from being a pain, that crams your portable player with much larger files. It sounds like this preserves quality AND filesize--which is otherwise an either-or proposition.

[whooleytoo]

If iTunes will burn the mp4 files on to a CD as an .aiff so it can be played in a CD player, don't you have free access to your music?

Or is the loss in quality so great?

AFAIK, that should be fine - it's only if you re-encode it it will lose quality.

The problem here is choice - if you buy from another music store, you have a massive range of devices to play it with. The iPod may be the best portable device, but choice is every bit as important too. Devices like the previously mentioned Soundbridge are becoming all the more common, and by not licensing Fairplay, it's excluding iTMS customers from this kind of innovation, and not filling the gap themselves.

Personally, I think Apple will eventually license Fairplay, but not until the market is much larger, and they hold a stronger hand. Until that day, I'm going to make sure I have a copy of Playfair/Hymn on my machine before I buy anything from iTMS (it's not available here yet.)

[AhmedFaisal]

I think it's you who doesn't get it. If you want to use licensed music for a purpose not in the agreement, then you shouldn't have made the agreement. A person is only as good as his or her word.

Great, and then what is next? The more you give in to their demands the more of your rights they will take. Ever thought about that? These people will not stop with just that. Its time to stand up against that kind of business behavior.
Regards,

Ahmed

[Taavi]

The only real reason for using this program is to allow wireless music streaming. If apple opened up Fairplay and allowed other companies to incorporate it into their products, I think that there would be a lot less users of these programs. If you can find a legal way to stream your music through a soundbridge, or other wireless media player, I personally would love to know.

[nmk]

If I decide to use a Roku Soundbridge for music I purchase its no one else's ****ing business but mine. Its not Steve's business, its not RIAA's business. They get my money for music, so they should ****ing shut up and be happy with it because that is all I am willing to give them. What I do with an item I purchase is my decision alone if RIAA don't like that they can ****ing die. They act like they are Rolls Royce who can choose its customers, but guess what RIAA, you are ****ing Jugo and if I decide to be nice and give you money for your crap you should thank me, even if I just take the CD and piss on it! Take the money and SHUT THE **** UP(TM)!
Cheers,

Ahmed

That pretty much sums up how I feel about the issue. This whole DRM thing is starting to get crazy. You've got Microsoft with their protected computing platform (protected for the distributers) and Apple with Fairplay. Soon we won't be able to do anything on our computer. I am completely against anything that restricts our rights to do what we want with the computers we buy. Did they put DRM on VCR's. Did they put DRM on tape recorders. No they didn't. These guys have just become greedy bastards, and I say **** them.

[crazytom]

I mean, really, 5 computers and 7 burns (more really, if you take the time) and this isn't enough for you? If you need more than that, I'm sorry, but you are probably violating copyright law anyway.


CD's scratch and there are some that update their computer every year (but I guess you can deauthorize a computer, can't you?). I have an interest in being able to do what I want with music files: I put together yearly videos of my son and put music as a background. More often than not, there's one song that would fit perfect. As it stands, I cannot use an iTMS purchased music file for my video....I should be able to, it falls within the 'fair use' definition, but FCP doesn't recognize AAC files and I can't convert the purchased song to AIFF....I can accept that, if the RIAA wants to cut me out, fine by me. If the RIAA showed anything that resembled customer service ("Yes, I'd like to return this song because it's crap."), I'd be inclined to defend them somewhat, but they're just out for the interest of the biggest names in music and their own back pockets. I would have to agree more with Ahmed.

[ryanw]

According to their website there is an important difference between this version and the old version. This version does not strip the apple meta data from the files. So if users use this tool (unmodified of course) then when they strip the fairplay DRM from their files it still includes the username they purchased/downloaded the files as.

I think this is an important note because if people were to blindly strip the drm from their files and post them on usenet, they would be tracked back to the person who purchased and presumably posted the songs.

[Tulse]

Great, and then what is next? The more you give in to their demands the more of your rights they will take. Ever thought about that? These people will not stop with just that. Its time to stand up against that kind of business behavior.

That's what I like to see -- political protest about not being able to copy music. Yep, that's a real pressing issue.

I've got news for you -- rights far more important than being able to copy music are already being taken from you. Yet you want to organize around music copying? With those priorities, I hope you get the government and corporations you deserve...

[ryanw]

Now that you can no longer use iTMS songs in iPhoto slideshows or iMovies, I actually have an interest in looking into this.

Are you serious? They made it so you can't use your purchased files in iPhoto or iMovie? Not even iLife 04 stuff?? Jeash..... this sux.. why not just go back to buying CDs from amazon.com?

[AhmedFaisal]

If you wanted to do all that, wouldn't it have been easier just to buy the CD then? That way, you could rip it, without DRM, into any format you want.

I think many of us here don't want any additional roadblocks for iTMS, should software from PlayFair and others get the RIAA' s attention.

If they would still sell normal CDs I would love to do that. But not only are CD prices a rip-off but they are also so called UnCDs which contain copy protection such as Cactus which not too long ago caused a lot of trouble to ;Macs and some won't even play in computer drives at all unless you hack the firmware. I do still buy a few CDs here and there, from independent artists who make their own stuff. I sometimes still go to the record store, but the only reason I go there is to see if some RIAA member was stupid enough to print the CDDA symbol on an UnCD, because that would be label fraud, and I could finally sue those ****ing assholes.
Cheers,

Ahmed

[whooleytoo]

According to their website there is an important difference between this version and the old version. This version does not strip the apple meta data from the files. So if users use this tool (unmodified of course) then when they strip the fairplay DRM from their files it still includes the username they purchased/downloaded the files as.

I think this is an important note because if people were to blindly strip the drm from their files and post them on usenet, they would be tracked back to the person who purchased and presumably posted the songs.

Unfortunately, it's probably only a matter of time before someone takes it a step further, and replaces the valid user name/ID in the file with a fake one.

[Stella]

Fairplay / Hymn is like a tarts knickers..

Up / down, Up / Down ....


:D

[popnfresh]

I have no problem with someone hacking anyone's DRM, even Apple's. DRM is the last refuge of corporate media greed.

No, the problem I have with Hymn/Playfair is that it plays right into Microsoft's hands. They're popping champagne corks in Redmond over this, because Microsoft now owns the only major DRM scheme that's still unbroken. They should have cracked WM9 before they went after Apple's Fairplay. The record companies will look upon Playfair as a big reason to embrace Windows Media Player and Microsoft's WM9 DRM. I hope everyone likes .WMV files, cuz we'll be seeing a lot more of them in the near future, imho.

[whooleytoo]

Fairplay / Hymn is like a tarts knickers..

Up / down, Up / Down ....


:D

Both involve a little stripping to get to share the fun stuff... ;)

[nmk]

I think it's you who doesn't get it. If you want to use licensed music for a purpose not in the agreement, then you shouldn't have made the agreement. A person is only as good as his or her word.

Most spyware makes you sign an agreement essentially allowing them to transfer your personal details to whomever they want. The fact that you signed this agreement doesn't change the fact that its crap. The agreement that you sign with Apple violates your fair use rights. I'm not sure how a contract can supersceed a national law. I think that there is more than enough grey area to conclude that your agreement with Apple is not worth the pixels it is rendered on.

[superfunkomatic]

The loss in quality, not even talking about the amount of time it takes, to burn and rerip is tremendous. The effect was once described in a good analogy. If you take an image of 800x600 pixels and blow it up to 8000x6000 and then convert it back to 800x600 the picture will show a significant loss in quality, just try it out. Same happens when you burn and rerip. What PlayFair/Hymn does is simply remove the DRM wrapper from the AAC, no conversion nothing, just removing the DRM, meaning no loss in quality.
Cheers,

Ahmed

sounds like you have already made up your mind. are you posting to try and convince others? and frankly, your lack of eloquence is part of the problem.

be reasonable, shouldn't everyone get paid for their work? the protection mechanisms are supposed to deter the average users from making or distributing copies. for those, like yourself, intent on not paying for music or encouraging others to not use copy protected music - they will never convince you. there are always ways around the rules. based on other licensing models this is one of the best out there - look at sony's site.

for others, hang in there, someone likely apple will keep introducing better ways to protect everyone's interest.

[idkew]

why not?


i downloaded it, just in case. doubt i will ever need to de-DRM my files, but it is a nice little insurance policy.

[Flowbee]

Now that you can no longer use iTMS songs in iPhoto slideshows or iMovies, I actually have an interest in looking into this.

This is completely untrue. You CAN still use iTMS songs in iPhoto and iMovie.

[AhmedFaisal]

That's what I like to see -- political protest about not being able to copy music. Yep, that's a real pressing issue.

I've got news for you -- rights far more important than being able to copy music are already being taken from you. Yet you want to organize around music copying? With those priorities, I hope you get the government and corporations you deserve...

Don't bring in politics, allright? DRM is a symptom of a larger evil that is called "****ing consumers and citizens in the ass" we all know that. But why ignore it here? I protest not only against that but against any way they want to limit my rights. I probably gave more money for the lawsuits to bring down the new laws for tapping into private homes and phonelines in germany than anyone else on this site. Why? Because I want to protect criminals? Heck no, but the way the law was constructed all it did was take away ordinary citizen's rights without achieving any of its goals (bringing down large scale crime). And why was that? Because the ones where you could get vital information on large scale crime were protected from the law, which are lawyers and politicians. So the guys that defend mobsters and manage their finances and the government crooks that protect mobsters were excluded from the law. Then I say **** that law. And with DRM its the same thing.
Cheers,

Ahmed

[ColdZero]

I think it's you who doesn't get it. If you want to use licensed music for a purpose not in the agreement, then you shouldn't have made the agreement. A person is only as good as his or her word.

elo

Just because something is placed in an agreement by a company does not mean it is legal or right. Many EULA's prevent the copying of a CD for a backup copy, which is protected by law. If you went and copied the CD for backup use, you would be protected by law, even though the EULA says otherwise.

[AhmedFaisal]

be reasonable, shouldn't everyone get paid for their work? the protection mechanisms are supposed to deter the average users from making or distributing copies. for those, like yourself, intent on not paying for music

Excuse me mister, either you show me where I said that I do not want to pay for music or you take it back/edit it out right now. I do not appreciate being called a thief!

Ahmed

[Doctor Q]

I follow license agreements because I agreed to them. But if it is true that I can't use any song I purchase in a Final Cut Pro home movie, I find that very frustrating.

That said, it looks like the hymn folks may be on a bit firmer legal ground with this version -- it preserves the ID of the original purchaser in the cracked file, which would make sharing a file over a P2P network much less attractive.What if somebody else creates a separate application that removes the ID from an unprotected AAC file? The combination would counter the Hymn deterrent against illegal sharing, but where would the ID remover application stand on legal grounds? This uncharted legal territory makes the whole subject fascinating.

[bpd115]

Are you serious? They made it so you can't use your purchased files in iPhoto or iMovie? Not even iLife 04 stuff?? Jeash..... this sux.. why not just go back to buying CDs from amazon.com?

No you can use it in iMove and iPhoto. Just install the new Quicktime.

[Koodauw]

Wow. Some people have very dirty mouths. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

I agree with others, in that if you don't like the terms of the service..DONT USE IT. If it is as horrid as you make it out to be, then the market won't support it.

It will be interesting to see how this thing plays out. Companies like Sony have done a pretty good job of preventing mod-chip sales (at least I think) to help prevent piracy, and DVD-X copy can no longer distribute a DVD-ripper in it burning software. I just hope that software such as this doesn't encourage record labels to pull out of the iTMS.

[musicpyrite]

These guys have just become greedy bastards, and I say **** them.

Fight the Man!

I'm downloading it now.

It's my music, I can do what ever I wish with it. (other than making dozens of copies and handing them out to friends (which I already do)) Edit: LOOK AT MY USER NAME!!!

[bpd115]

Fight the Man!

I'm downloading it now.

It's my music, I can do what ever I wish with it. (other than making dozens of copies and handing them out to friends (which I already do))

I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy but the way I see it is you're paying .99 cents for access to a track that you can do pretty much anything you normally want with (Sans streaming, using with other MP3 devices, home media, etc.)

If you want to do other things with it, then buy the CD or the CD single and rip it yourself.

Online music is the future and crap like this just provides the RIAA with ammo to pull the plug in its infancy, right or wrong.

[AhmedFaisal]

It will be interesting to see how this thing plays out. Companies like Sony have done a pretty good job of preventing mod-chip sales (at least I think) to help prevent piracy, and DVD-X copy can no longer distribute a DVD-ripper in it burning software. I just hope that software such as this doesn't encourage record labels to pull out of the iTMS.

LOL. Do you really believe in the fairytale that Sony prevented modchips because of piracy? Do you honestly think Region Codes were invented because of that? No, the reason is Sony wants to decide what we can buy and what not. Why should I go to the movies here in Germany and spend 15 Euros for a lousy done dub if I can already get the US DVD for 10$ on Amazon? Its money friend. Same goes for games, why should I buy a hackjob censored European version of a game if I can get it cheaper and uncut from Japan or USA. That is what Sony wants to prevent, not piracy.
Cheers,

Ahmed

[nmk]

Fight the Man!

I'm downloading it now.

It's my music, I can do what ever I wish with it. (other than making dozens of copies and handing them out to friends (which I already do))

I'm arguing about this on an ideological basis. I'm from Pakistan, and over here all music is pirated. I don't need to download PlayFair to pirate music. All I have to do is go buy a CD from a music store.

[Wonder Boy]

i'm downloading this and stashing it for future use.

same here.

[iggyb]

That's what I like to see -- political protest about not being able to copy music. Yep, that's a real pressing issue.

I've got news for you -- rights far more important than being able to copy music are already being taken from you. Yet you want to organize around music copying? With those priorities, I hope you get the government and corporations you deserve...

And I've got news for you. You can fight for more than one right, or even what one may or may not constitute as a "right". But since you're so omniscient, make a list of the rights we ought to fight for and the rights that you deem unworthy.

I doubt I'll ever download this, as I imagine the songs I've purchased on iTMS will do just fine on my iPod or my computer. But I hate the RIAA, I hate their tactics, and I think they've done far more damage to themselves than anyone who will download this program. I anticipate the whole music industry will be (however painfully) a complete revamp of how music artists make money. Fine by me, since the whole setup now is ridiculous.

[ZildjianKX]

Apple should be happy, to use this on a mac you need an iPod :)

Windows is a different story... anyways... I'm really happy that this program came back... I hate the DRM crap and I'll actually buy more music now that I can strip it. And no, I don't pirate my music. It sucks if your internet connection goes down and you need to re-authenticate your music, for example.

[slughead]

The day I tried playfair was the day iTunes 4.5 came out and told me they were tightening the restrictions on their DRM (no more toast, no more iphoto, no more than 7 burns of the same playlist).

Apple had one chance to keep me buying iTMS, and to keep me from breaking their DRM, and that by was NOT locking down the music that I had already purchased.

All they had to do was NOT try to screw me over, a simple request.

I bought the song, I want to use it in the same way I did when I first bought it. You try to "indian give" my permissions and I'm cutting you off.

Since then I've converted all my m4ps to m4a, and trashed everything having to do with iTMS, I'm even thinking about eliminating my account.

You all can do what you want, they changed the deal after it had been done, and THAT's not playing fair.

Just my two cents.

[bpd115]

The day I tried playfair was the day iTunes 4.5 came out and told me they were tightening the restrictions on their DRM (no more toast, no more iphoto, no more than 7 burns of the same playlist).


Where does this 'you can't use it in iphoto and imovie' come from? The only thing they did was drop playlist count from 10 to 7 (really hard to switch up a song on a playlist if you need to, not to mention if you really really want or need another copy of a cd, there are other ways to copy a cd). They INCREASED the playback from 3 to 5 computers...that was a trade off that was fine be me!

[whooleytoo]

If you want to do other things with it, then buy the CD or the CD single and rip it yourself.

Online music is the future and crap like this just provides the RIAA with ammo to pull the plug in its infancy, right or wrong.

But by the same logic, if the online music service doesn't provide the freedom of usage a certain user might want, then why should they be concerned if the RIAA do pull the plug?

In this case, Apple's closer to being the 'bad guy' than the RIAA, since it's Apple that refuses to support protected WMA on the iPod (which doesn't bother me), nor license Fairplay to others (which does).

[Tulse]

Most spyware makes you sign an agreement essentially allowing them to transfer your personal details to whomever they want. The fact that you signed this agreement doesn't change the fact that its crap.

But, in the case of spyware, perfectly legal (as far as I have heard). The principle is pretty simple -- if you agree to it, you should keep your word.

The agreement that you sign with Apple violates your fair use rights.

I am not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt that that is true in law. You can indeed make backups of your music. You can keep your music on a limited number of multiple machines, and, if that is too onerous, you can back up your music to MP3 as much as you want (sure, it's in a degraded form, but copying vinyl records and cassette tapes also introduced degradation, and I don't recall people complaining about fair use violations).

[iggyb]

But, in the case of spyware, perfectly legal (as far as I have heard). The principle is pretty simple -- if you agree to it, you should keep your word.



I am not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt that that is true in law. You can indeed make backups of your music. You can keep your music on a limited number of multiple machines, and, if that is too onerous, you can back up your music to MP3 as much as you want (sure, it's in a degraded form, but copying vinyl records and cassette tapes also introduced degradation, and I don't recall people complaining about fair use violations).

That's because people weren't limited to what tape and record players they were allowed to play it on.

[Tulse]

It's my music, I can do what ever I wish with it.

Not legally you can't.

[Tulse]

That's because people weren't limited to what tape and record players they were allowed to play it on.

You're not limited to what CD players you're allowed to play your iTMS songs on, if you burn a CD. How is that different?

[eric_n_dfw]

You guys (gals) scared me when you said the you couldn't use iTMS purchased music in iMovie any more. That's the only way I had (besides dl'ing a hack like PlayFair) of using those tracks in Final Cut Pro.

(iMovie allows you to export your protected AAC track as an AIFF which you can then use in FCP)

[bpd115]

But by the same logic, if the online music service doesn't provide the freedom of usage a certain user might want, then why should they be concerned if the RIAA do pull the plug?

In this case, Apple's closer to being the 'bad guy' than the RIAA, since it's Apple that refuses to support protected WMA on the iPod (which doesn't bother me), nor license Fairplay to others (which does).

That is fine if the online service doesn't provide the user what they want. They can choose not to buy from that service. That does not mean they can buy from that service and then violate the terms of service by cracking the file.

Online music is the way of the future, we all can agree on that. With that will come better DRM, perhaps less restrictions. Unfortunately we must hold the RIAA's hand and drag them into the future kicking and screaming it seems. Software like this just gives them a reason to take their ball and go home. Yes it's a ball they shouldn't own but...

Also, I feel Apple will license Fairplay but they want to insure their future first. If they license it out now, they may be undercut and canablized the way they were when the Mac Clones were out there. Apple is the main player right now and that is how I like it.

[LethalWolfe]

That pretty much sums up how I feel about the issue. This whole DRM thing is starting to get crazy. You've got Microsoft with their protected computing platform (protected for the distributers) and Apple with Fairplay. Soon we won't be able to do anything on our computer. I am completely against anything that restricts our rights to do what we want with the computers we buy. Did they put DRM on VCR's. Did they put DRM on tape recorders. No they didn't. These guys have just become greedy bastards, and I say **** them.

1. DRM=Digital Rights management. Casette tapes and VHS tapes are not digital.

2. Yes, VHS movies have copy protection on them. It's called Macrovision.
2a. The analog meduim itself acted as copy protection because it was inherently a costly, slow, quality degrading, and expensive process to copy and distribute copies of an analog source on anything but a very small scale.
2b. Treating the digital meduim the same is the analog medium is flawed. They are two different beasts. It's like attempting to govern cars and airplanes with the same rules.

3. How is this limiting what you can do on your computer? If you don't like their service don't use it. Go buy the CD. I've never purchased anything off iTMS and my Mac is still as functional as the day I bought it.


Lethal

[Neuro]

I can't help but think if you don't like the packaging (ie the DRM), then don't buy the product. There are plenty of alternatives.

You wouldn't buy a cat and then complain that it doesn't say 'moo'.

It's up to the consumer to make something popular if it's a good product, or shop elsewhere to give competition if 'Fairplay' doesn't give you what you want.

If the ITMS closes because the DRM can't be trusted, the record labels won't distribute in this way, and we'll all lose out...

I personally still buy CDs, as I can do what I want with them.

[frozenstar]

The issue has nothing to do with Apple or Microsoft or even the RIAA.

Succumbing to limitations on fair use gives the corporate world the green light to go ahead and impose only more restrictions.

Freedom is a constant struggle between those in power and those not. If you're willing to sacrifice your rights so that one corporation can dominate the market instead of another, you don't deserve to have an opinion.

[ethernet76]

I had a long, well-thought out reply about this, but after reading Ahmed's post, I don't think that I'll bother. Those of you that are convinced that your rights are somehow being oppressed by Apple's DRM will not be convinced otherwise. I mean, really, 5 computers and 7 burns (more really, if you take the time) and this isn't enough for you? If you need more than that, I'm sorry, but you are probably violating copyright law anyway.

Forget it. I'm not wasting any more time with this.

Regards,
Gus

I bet you would have said the same for songs bought with only allowances for three computers.

I have six computers, so even the 4.5 DRM does not meet my needs.(Powerbook(G4), iBook(G3), iMac(15"), PC(webserver), PC(database development, etc.), PC(file server). With the addition of my sister's eventual laptop our network will grow to seven.

So the pithy three computer alotment isn't even close to enough with the old DRM, and honestly I don't think I should have to run around trying to figure out which computer is authorized for what so I can listen to the music I bought.

As for the seven cd burns. If I wanted a CD I would have bought a CD. I bought songs off the iTMS soley because I had no plan of playing it in a CD player. This burning it and ripping it is like telling me I have to listen to a cassette tape because the CD isn't allowed to play because it has been authorized to three other CD players somewhere.

All I want is music as if I ripped it myself from the CD. The iTMS isn't saving anyone money really. You get no jewel case, no album insert, and no CD. I get nothing but 1's and 0's, and they think they should have the ability to tell me how to use my 1's and 0's. Whereas with CDs you have carte blanche and a physical item.

DRM is an attack on civil liberties.

Next thing you know, Apple will put out poorly design products and tell you to replace it when it breaks. Wait a minute...

[ethernet76]

You wouldn't buy a cat and then complain that it doesn't say 'moo'.


Would you complain if you adopted a child only afterwards to find out it was retarded?

It's pretty much the same thing.

[bpd115]

The issue has nothing to do with Apple or Microsoft or even the RIAA.

Succumbing to limitations on fair use gives the corporate world the green light to go ahead and impose only more restrictions.

Freedom is a constant struggle between those in power and those not. If you're willing to sacrifice your rights so that one corporation can dominate the market instead of another, you don't deserve to have an opinion.

Since when is it my 'right' to do what I please with music I did not record, write or create? Must have missed that in the constitution.

This is simple. They are saying we have this product which you can do this this and this with for a price of .99 cents. If you say "HEY GREAT DEAL" then buy it.

If you think the restrictions are too much, don't buy it. End of story.

In the end the market will dictate what is acceptable and what is not.

[iggyb]

You're not limited to what CD players you're allowed to play your iTMS songs on, if you burn a CD. How is that different?

Actually, if you've ever had the pleasure of buying one of those copy-protected CDs that locked up when you inserted it into your computer, then you would realize that you ARE limited, in some cases.

Plus, I was referring to your statement that making degraded copies of songs didn't bring complaints before, and my rebuttal was that it was because those copies weren't limited to where they could be played. For DRM-protected songs, they are.

[ethernet76]

But, in the case of spyware, perfectly legal (as far as I have heard). The principle is pretty simple -- if you agree to it, you should keep your word.

Spyware isn't really legal unless they make aware that the software is transmitting data some point before it sends its first data.

Otherwise it's like going to your neighbor's installing a camera, and waiting for them to figure it out.

[Tulse]

I have six computers, so even the 4.5 DRM does not meet my needs.

[...]

So the pithy three computer alotment isn't even close to enough with the old DRM, and honestly I don't think I should have to run around trying to figure out which computer is authorized for what so I can listen to the music I bought.

So don't buy music from the iTMS. Why is this so difficult to understand?

All I want is music as if I ripped it myself from the CD.

So buy a CD, and put up with the very minor hassle of ripping it.

I get nothing but 1's and 0's, and they think they should have the ability to tell me how to use my 1's and 0's.

And copyright law agrees with them -- your rights to someone else's artistic productions are not unlimited.

Whereas with CDs you have carte blanche and a physical item.

You don't have carte blanche with CDs, although given that you believe you do, why not just buy CDs?


DRM is an attack on civil liberties.

If you think minor restrictions on your use of a commercial product are a significant infringement on your civil liberties, I despair for democracy.

[LethalWolfe]

The issue has nothing to do with Apple or Microsoft or even the RIAA.

Succumbing to limitations on fair use gives the corporate world the green light to go ahead and impose only more restrictions.

Freedom is a constant struggle between those in power and those not. If you're willing to sacrifice your rights so that one corporation can dominate the market instead of another, you don't deserve to have an opinion.


It's funny to hear people screaming about what their rights are when it comes to using copyrighted material but no one stands up for the owners of the copyrights who currently are the ones having their rights trampled left and right. Oh, wait, that's because if do that you get called a greedy, corporate whore or something along those lines.

And I see everyone screaming at the RIAA but why aren't people screaming at the government for passing the DMCA? Or at the courts for, so far, judging in favor of the DMCA and against 20 year old consumer friendly precendents? The DMCA is a lot more dangerous and a lot more powerful that the RIAA.


Lethal

[iggyb]

Since when is it my 'right' to do what I please with music I did not record, write or create? Must have missed that in the constitution.

This is simple. They are saying we have this product which you can do this this and this with for a price of .99 cents. If you say "HEY GREAT DEAL" then buy it.

If you think the restrictions are too much, don't buy it. End of story.

In the end the market will dictate what is acceptable and what is not.

That's what makes this all so interesting. I think the market is, in fact, dictating what is acceptable. I think consumers (myself included) are sick of buying an album because of one song, only to find that the rest of the album stinks (or at least the buyer thinks it stinks). The labels have had an incredible stranglehold on the market for quite some time now. I think it's odd that all the labels price their hit CDs the same, and way higher than it costs to produce. It's an unofficial oligopoly. I think Apple did a good thing with iTMS, but even so, as Mr. Jobs said, people want to OWN their music. Restricting what they can do with it, based on the assumption that it will be pirated, is not really a true ownership. That's not to say that everyone deserves to have free music or anything like that. But the system is currently flawed.

Remember, the RIAA despised DAT Recorders because they thought it would send them to bankruptcy as well. The MPAA likened the VCR as the Boston Strangler of movies. They're just paranoid. And their tactics to try and keep control of everything just won't work.

[iggyb]

It's funny to hear people screaming about what their rights are when it comes to using copyrighted material but no one stands up for the owners of the copyrights who currently are the ones having their rights trampled left and right. Oh, wait, that's because if do that you get called a greedy, corporate whore or something along those lines.

And I see everyone screaming at the RIAA but why aren't people screaming at the government for passing the DMCA? Or at the courts for, so far, judging in favor of the DMCA and against 20 year old consumer friendly precendents? The DMCA is a lot more dangerous and a lot more powerful that the RIAA.


Lethal

I definitely agree with you there. The DMCA is friggin' evil.

[whooleytoo]

You wouldn't buy a cat and then complain that it doesn't say 'moo'.

You wouldn't buy a car, and then let the manufacturer tell you what streets you can drive on, and how many people you can have in the car..

(I'm not sure any of these analogies are entirely accurate, but just keeping in the spirit.. ;) )

For the record, I think the main 'issue' people have is less with the RIAA enforced restrictions (no. of cd burns, no. of authorized computers) and more to do with Apple's (iPod only).

[gemio17]

No one has commented on the quote on hymn-project.org which I found great and really relavent to many of the arguments being waged in this forum:

"The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." "To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art."
-- US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

[Gus]

Many of you probably don't have much of a connection with the instrumental ensemble world (orchestras, bands, etc.) except maybe in high school, but this same topic comes up in a different way there:

An individual teacher decides that they hear a piece of music they want their ensemble to play, but they don't want to pay the $100 or so that it costs. So what do they do? They go to the local music library and photocopy the entire score and parts and hand it out to their members and perform it. Their justification is that the composer has been dead for 100 years and that it is "public domain" or some other excuse. What they have done is denied the publisher and the rights holder (usually a family member of the original composer, but not always) the money it cost them to typeset and print that piece.

This also happens on an individual level with private music teachers photocopying a piece of solo music for their student instead of having them purchase it. Both scenarios have people blatantly breaking the laws-both U.S. and internationsl rights laws-with impunity.

New composers cannot get music published and the price of printed music keeps skyrocketing every year because the publishers have to make up for lost revenue due to theft by copying. It is an endless cycle with those making the copies justifying it by saying the publishers are charging too much for the music ($10-$60 for a solo piece), and the publishers legitimately losing money and having to raise prices to cover their loss.

If everyone in this scenario would play by the laws and rules, everyone would be happy: lower prices and better selection. Just because the music exists and they can buy it, it does not give them the right to do with it as they please.

See a parallel?

Regards,
Gus

[bpd115]

That's what makes this all so interesting. I think the market is, in fact, dictating what is acceptable. I think consumers (myself included) are sick of buying an album because of one song, only to find that the rest of the album stinks (or at least the buyer thinks it stinks). The labels have had an incredible stranglehold on the market for quite some time now. I think it's odd that all the labels price their hit CDs the same, and way higher than it costs to produce. It's an unofficial oligopoly. I think Apple did a good thing with iTMS, but even so, as Mr. Jobs said, people want to OWN their music. Restricting what they can do with it, based on the assumption that it will be pirated, is not really a true ownership. That's not to say that everyone deserves to have free music or anything like that. But the system is currently flawed.

Remember, the RIAA despised DAT Recorders because they thought it would send them to bankruptcy as well. The MPAA likened the VCR as the Boston Strangler of movies. They're just paranoid. And their tactics to try and keep control of everything just won't work.

I agree, I limited my CD buying to a select few artists (and still do) because I got burnt alot of times buying for that 'one song'. And you are right, they are paranoid and I for one don't want to fuel their paranoia. The system may be flawed but personally I don't feel all that restricted with my iTMS purchases...if I did, I would not have purchased.

Apple always innovates...I can bet they will have a streaming media server or box in the future that will play ITMS purchases, maybe even come up with something for Linux..

There really isn't much I find I can't do with my iTMS purchases

[frozenstar]

Since when is it my 'right' to do what I please with music I did not record, write or create? Must have missed that in the constitution.

This is simple. They are saying we have this product which you can do this this and this with for a price of .99 cents. If you say "HEY GREAT DEAL" then buy it.

If you think the restrictions are too much, don't buy it. End of story.

In the end the market will dictate what is acceptable and what is not.

I didn't say it's my right to do "what I please" with music. But there are certain fair use provisions in copyright law that cannot legally be circumvented merely by drawing up a contract stating the contrary.

Whether I purchase music on iTunes or at the local record store, I retain the right to use that music for my own listening enjoyment, irrespective of the device or medium it was designed to be played on.

Oh, "the market" will dictate what is acceptable and what is not? So "the market" thinks $17 is an acceptable price for a CD? No, of course not. They just don't have any good alternatives. If iTunes ends up being a digital music monopoly, it doesn't matter what "the market" thinks is acceptable. A course in microeconomics should illuminate this whole issue for you.

Just to make it clear that I have no desire to steal and/or illegally distribute music, I have listed three valid reasons for using PlayFair.

I have an MP3-CD player in my car. Without PlayFair, I have no means to play music purchased from iTunes in my car.

I have a machine running Linux in my house. Without PlayFair, I have no means to play music purchased from iTunes on that computer.

I have a wireless audio streaming device connected to my computer. Without PlayFair, I have no means to play music purchased from iTunes through this device.

[areyouwishing]

To the people that think Apple's DRM isn't fair...

WHAT PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS HAVE YOU RUN INTO?

So far the only ones I have heard is...

1. Non-Ipod support
2. Soundbridge Player type support

Other than those 2 issues, what limitations have you actually run into? Where they didn't allow you to do something.

[Neuro]

Would you complain if you adopted a child only afterwards to find out it was retarded?

It's pretty much the same thing.

I think I'd probably work it out when examining the goods. I'd certainly read up on what I was buying first... If you don't, it's your own fault.

If you have several computers (like I do), why can't you just have one copy of the file in iTunes and share the library to other iTunes computers over your network (like I do)? Works really well.

I can appreciate people feel that they have bought a song and they can do what they want with it, but because it's digital (copy with no loss), it's software and must follow a software model to make business sense. It's commonly agreed that it's unfair to buy an application, then install it on all your office PCs on one license. If Apple if upfront about it (which they are), why is this any different?

Again, if you don't like the PRODUCT, not song, don't buy it.

There are alternatives...

[frozenstar]

To the people that think Apple's DRM isn't fair...

WHAT PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS HAVE YOU RUN INTO?

So far the only ones I have heard is...

1. Non-Ipod support
2. Soundbridge Player type support

Other than those 2 issues, what limitations have you actually run into? Where they didn't allow you to do something.

I just cited three more for you in my previous post.

[soosy]

This is completely untrue. You CAN still use iTMS songs in iPhoto and iMovie.

I'd love to be wrong about this, but I did a test exporting a quicktime from iPhoto the other night and the sound wouldn't play on a computer that wasn't authorized. So not much use for sending to other family members and having the sound play.

Perhaps it's different for iMovie or iDVD?

(btw, was using latest iPhoto, QT 6.5.1 etc)

[whooleytoo]

That is fine if the online service doesn't provide the user what they want. They can choose not to buy from that service. That does not mean they can buy from that service and then violate the terms of service by cracking the file.

As I understand it, it's a legal grey area - provided it's only for personal use. Morally, I wouldn't have any problem with cracking a file to use on other devices.

It's all a bit academic for me, given that the service isn't here yet. But the more "constructive criticism" consumers give now, the quicker these services will move to less restrictive terms.

Also, I feel Apple will license Fairplay but they want to insure their future first. If they license it out now, they may be undercut and canablized the way they were when the Mac Clones were out there. Apple is the main player right now and that is how I like it.

Agree completely. I sincerely hope Apple do license it eventually, or they'll be marginalised the way they were when they decided not to allow Mac clones ;)

Apple would control the Fairplay licensing, so they could control whether or not they were undercut. They could also license an iPod 'reference design' to third party manufacturers to make iPod 'clones'. This would give Apple a lot more scope for big margins, than simply licensing Fairplay.

[Gus]

"Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright."

From : http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

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

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

From: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

Regards,
Gus

[bpd115]

Just to make it clear that I have no desire to steal and/or illegally distribute music, I have listed three valid reasons for using PlayFair.

I have an MP3-CD player in my car. Without PlayFair, I have no means to play music purchased from iTunes in my car.
Then Buy the CD.

I have a machine running Linux in my house. Without PlayFair, I have no means to play music purchased from iTunes on that computer.
Buy the CD.
I have a wireless audio streaming device connected to my computer. Without PlayFair, I have no means to play music purchased from iTunes through this device.
Buy the CD.

iTunes was not ment to be used for those instances you've run into...unfortunately iTunes doesn't suite your particular needs at this time. Find an alternative legal way until it does.

[frozenstar]

It's funny to hear people screaming about what their rights are when it comes to using copyrighted material but no one stands up for the owners of the copyrights who currently are the ones having their rights trampled left and right. Oh, wait, that's because if do that you get called a greedy, corporate whore or something along those lines.

And I see everyone screaming at the RIAA but why aren't people screaming at the government for passing the DMCA? Or at the courts for, so far, judging in favor of the DMCA and against 20 year old consumer friendly precendents? The DMCA is a lot more dangerous and a lot more powerful that the RIAA.

Oh, the copyright owners are having their rights trampled on? The same record labels that have been engaging in price-fixing practices for years?

With regard to the DMCA, I entirely agree. I attack that piece of legislation every opportunity I have. Mix the DMCA and the Patriot Act, throw in a few Republicans, and you've got yourself a recipe for statism.

My apologies for the political commentary. I just couldn't help it. And in all fairness, the Democrats are just as bad, just in a different way.

[iggyb]

Many of you probably don't have much of a connection with the instrumental ensemble world (orchestras, bands, etc.) except maybe in high school, but this same topic comes up in a different way there:

An individual teacher decides that they hear a piece of music they want their ensemble to play, but they don't want to pay the $100 or so that it costs. So what do they do? They go to the local music library and photocopy the entire score and parts and hand it out to their members and perform it. Their justification is that the composer has been dead for 100 years and that it is "public domain" or some other excuse. What they have done is denied the publisher and the rights holder (usually a family member of the original composer, but not always) the money it cost them to typeset and print that piece.

This also happens on an individual level with private music teachers photocopying a piece of solo music for their student instead of having them purchase it. Both scenarios have people blatantly breaking the laws-both U.S. and internationsl rights laws-with impunity.

New composers cannot get music published and the price of printed music keeps skyrocketing every year because the publishers have to make up for lost revenue due to theft by copying. It is an endless cycle with those making the copies justifying it by saying the publishers are charging too much for the music ($10-$60 for a solo piece), and the publishers legitimately losing money and having to raise prices to cover their loss.

If everyone in this scenario would play by the laws and rules, everyone would be happy: lower prices and better selection. Just because the music exists and they can buy it, it does not give them the right to do with it as they please.

See a parallel?

Regards,
Gus

First of all, there are limits on the copyright laws. There are no owned rights to any Mozart pieces, family or otherwise. I believe the copyright expires 75 years after the death of the owner. So your argument would be for the printing publisher of the piece. Having experience in this field as well, most scores are printed on oversized paper, which makes running to a simple copy machine impractical. And of course, no Kinkos would ever do the service for you, since they won't make copies out of a published book.

That's not to say it doesn't happen. Sure, it does. However, most schools and all professional symphonies do buy the music. Why? Because if they're caught, they are paying huge fines. And all it takes is one disgruntled member to turn them in.

Now, as for a conductor not wanting to pay $100 for a score, so he/she goes to the library and copies it there? Hmmm.....15 pages at 10 cents per page is $1.50....times 70 members.....$105. :rolleyes:

[alset]

If I decide to use a Roku Soundbridge for music I purchase its no one else's ****ing business but mine. Its not Steve's business, its not RIAA's business. They get my money for music, so they should ****ing shut up and be happy with it because that is all I am willing to give them. What I do with an item I purchase is my decision alone if RIAA don't like that they can ****ing die. etc etc etc.....

Funny, it only took reading about six posts into the thread to remind me why I'm not active in these forums anymore. I wish arn would adopt a system with user moderation (slashcode comes to mind). I'd love to learn and share with the MR community without having to wade through waste-high ignorance.

Dan

[SiliconAddict]

Amen. It is bizarre to me that people seem to think they have a natural right to music. If you don't like the terms of the contract, don't agree to it -- it's really that simple. Any other argument is simply rationalization for theft.



What theft?!?! Are you daft?!? If you purchased the music or the music file or whatever you are entitled to listen to the song. Cracking the DRM is
NOT theft. Its breaking a contractual agreement that you made with Apple when you signed up for iTMS. I consider this to be in the same vain as Microsoft and just about everyone else's EULA. Screw the fine print. If I crack the encryption and use it to play music on MY terms without redistributing it who gives a crap. At the end of the day one and only one thing should matter. You gave apple the .99 cents for that track. Anything else is anal retentive legalese overkill. IMHO the world is already being choked to death with this kind of crap. Enough already.

That being said I'm not in any hurry to crack Apple's encryption now that they have upped the number of systems to 5 but I won't hesitate if I want to do something that Apple doesn't allow. Sorry but I've invested over $900 now in iTMS. This is no longer some pet project investment. If I want to listen to it on some other device or method. (My Pocket PC comes to mind.) I sure as heck will one way or another and some lic isn't going to stop me from doing that. I may be breaking a contractual agreement but I'm sure has heck no longer a thief.

PS- There is some serious questions whether or not simply clicking YES to an EULA is contractually binding. To date this issue has not come up in court but many are suggesting that clicking a button can not be considered a valid method of agreeing to a contract nor can it be guaranteed that it was YOU who clicked on the button. Hence the reason in most real world contracts you have to sign an agreement. I think in the next 5-10 years this issue will come to a head but right now its up in the air.

[iggyb]

Oh, the copyright owners are having their rights trampled on? The same record labels that have been engaging in price-fixing practices for years?

With regard to the DMCA, I entirely agree. I attack that piece of legislation every opportunity I have. Mix the DMCA and the Patriot Act, throw in a few Republicans, and you've got yourself a recipe for statism.

My apologies for the political commentary. I just couldn't help it. And in all fairness, the Democrats are just as bad, just in a different way.

Not too much in a different way...Clinton signed the DMCA and it's the Democrat Senators (like Fritz Hollins) that are always bringing up bills that benefit the RIAA. It's all lobbying.

[MacNut]

People always complain about how baseball players mane too much money, but those same people dont care that the RIAA or artists themselves make to much money. Nobody ever talks about a salary cap on Britney Spears, but oh no Derek Jeter is making 150 mill. The fact is everything is over priced and we are paying these people far more than they are worth.

[greenstork]

Amen. It is bizarre to me that people seem to think they have a natural right to music. If you don't like the terms of the contract, don't agree to it -- it's really that simple. Any other argument is simply rationalization for theft.

That said, it looks like the hymn folks may be on a bit firmer legal ground with this version -- it preserves the ID of the original purchaser in the cracked file, which would make sharing a file over a P2P network much less attractive.

I'm sorry, it is you who does not get it, and elo too. Ahmed seems to be the only one who does understand copyright law and the evolving definition of "fair use."

Fair use can be determined by weighing the following criteria:
1) What is the nature of the use?
2) What is the nature of the work to be used?
3) How much of the work will be used?
4) What effect would the intended use have on the market value of the work?

Many would argue that being able to play an iTMS song on something besides an iPod is fair use, and as Ahmed pointed out, so it being able to stream a song to his SoundBridge home stereo.

Seriously, everyone here needs to understand the DMCA and other laws about copyright before coming onto these forums acting like Apple apologists. Why do you all want Apple controlling how you can use music purchased on the iTMS. I certainly don't want corporations with that kind of control over my life.

I wouldn't ever want to share music over P2P networks but I do want the freedom to use music I purchase as I see fit under the rule of law.

As an aside, the fact that you can only use iTMS purchased music on the iPod is monopolistic. People rant and rave when Microsoft does this kind of stuff and apologize for Apple when they do it. Open your eyes folks.

[Doctor Q]

... An individual teacher decides that they hear a piece of music they want their ensemble to play, but they don't want to pay the $100 or so that it costs. So what do they do? They go to the local music library and photocopy the entire score and parts and hand it out to their members and perform it. Their justification is that the composer has been dead for 100 years and that it is "public domain" or some other excuse. What they have done is denied the publisher and the rights holder (usually a family member of the original composer, but not always) the money it cost them to typeset and print that piece. ... It is an endless cycle with those making the copies justifying it by saying the publishers are charging too much for the music ($10-$60 for a solo piece), and the publishers legitimately losing money and having to raise prices to cover their loss.And I see the same thing with teachers copying software. They justify it by saying they have budget constraints. So the software vendors charge more because fewer people are paying for what they use.

[idkew]

Then Buy the CD.

Buy the CD.

Buy the CD.

iTunes was not ment to be used for those instances you've run into...unfortunately iTunes doesn't suite your particular needs at this time. Find an alternative legal way until it does.

I agree with you on these points.

Except, you forget to mention one. If Apple decides to close down the iTMS, they can legally make it so you can no longer use your previously purchased music. Apple is plain and clear about this in the user agreement.

I like this app since if the aforementioned situation were to ever occur, I hopefully could still de-DRM my legally purchased music and continue to enjoy it.

If you are thinking "that would never happen" look at the history of DIVX (not the compression scheme). When DIVX went under, I was stuck with several unwatched movies I never could watch, yet I paid for them.

The ability to stop me from using my music is my largest problem with the iTMS, and PlayFair makes this less of a problem for me. I have it Just In Case.

[cmoney]

Then Buy the CD.

Buy the CD.

iTunes was not ment to be used for those instances you've run into...unfortunately iTunes doesn't suite your particular needs at this time. Find an alternative legal way until it does.

Legal shmegal. Driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit is technically illegal but it's tolerated. Speeding however is not tolerated in situations where it may cause harm.

In this case, money has been paid to the copyright holder, the distributor, the artist. All that's happening is the medium is being changed. No money is being lost to piracy. Furthermore, the music is not being used in a manner inconsistent with its original purpose: eg, it's not being performed in public, it's not being rebroadcast to an audience, etc.

BTW, the music companies would also like to remove the "Buy the CD" option. IMHO, if it weren't for the potential bad blood and resulting loss of profits, the record companies would have closed this technical loop hole a long long time ago.

When 8 track machines went out of production, people had every right to change the medium and record it to cassettes. Why is it now illegal to change the medium and keep the original product (audio information including tags) intact? Imagine the uproar if record companies placed EULAs on a cassette that read: "you are allowed to play this in a Walkman style cassette player or stereo receiver but you are not allowed to record this to a CD and play it in a CD player."

[greenstork]

I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy but the way I see it is you're paying .99 cents for access to a track that you can do pretty much anything you normally want with (Sans streaming, using with other MP3 devices, home media, etc.)

If you want to do other things with it, then buy the CD or the CD single and rip it yourself.

Online music is the future and crap like this just provides the RIAA with ammo to pull the plug in its infancy, right or wrong.

I don't believe that giving corporations more control over using things that you purchase is the answer.

If the RIAA pulls the plug on online music, they are signing their own death warrant because P2P file sharing isn't stopping anytime soon. The only chance they have to recoup those losses is to "get in the game" by supporting online music services.

[Stella]

How would this work? Does this mean that if my Mac isn't connected to the internet I can't play my iTMS purchased music? If not, then how can Apple closing down the iTMS stop me playing such music?

I agree with you on these points.

Except, you forget to mention one. If Apple decides to close down the iTMS, they can legally make it so you can no longer use your previously purchased music. Apple is plain and clear about this in the user agreement.

[SeaFox]

Great, and then what is next? The more you give in to their demands the more of your rights they will take. Ever thought about that? These people will not stop with just that. Its time to stand up against that kind of business behavior.
Regards,

Ahmed

What do you think "agreeing to terms of contract" means? If you don't like the terms of the agreement, you don't use the iTMS. That is what "standing up against that kind of business behavior" is. Not using programs to violate the agreement. The moment you signed up for the iTMS and started using it you "gave in to their demands".

If the terms of service bother you so much you can buy CD's in stores and pay cash to avoid any DRM or tracking of what you bought.

Did you ever think about that?

[greenstork]

Not legally you can't.

But he can legally play it on something besides the iPod and subvert the DRM to do so, and he can stream it to his home stereo and strip the DRM to do so. DRM that does not allow you "fair use" isn't playing fair, so to speak ;)

[greenstork]

The issue has nothing to do with Apple or Microsoft or even the RIAA.

Succumbing to limitations on fair use gives the corporate world the green light to go ahead and impose only more restrictions.

Freedom is a constant struggle between those in power and those not. If you're willing to sacrifice your rights so that one corporation can dominate the market instead of another, you don't deserve to have an opinion.

Amen, finally, the first poster on these forums who gets it.

[greenstork]

Since when is it my 'right' to do what I please with music I did not record, write or create? Must have missed that in the constitution.

This is simple. They are saying we have this product which you can do this this and this with for a price of .99 cents. If you say "HEY GREAT DEAL" then buy it.

If you think the restrictions are too much, don't buy it. End of story.

In the end the market will dictate what is acceptable and what is not.

Please read up on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) before making these broad assertions, it's obvious that you don't fully understand copyright law (not the Constitution BTW).

[jpk]

If I decide to use a Roku Soundbridge for music I purchase its no one else's ****ing business but mine. Its not Steve's business, its not RIAA's business. They get my money for music, so they should ****ing shut up and be happy with it because that is all I am willing to give them. What I do with an item I purchase is my decision alone if RIAA don't like that they can ****ing die. They act like they are Rolls Royce who can choose its customers, but guess what RIAA, you are ****ing Jugo and if I decide to be nice and give you money for your crap you should thank me, even if I just take the CD and piss on it! Take the money and SHUT THE **** UP(TM)!
Cheers,

Ahmed

Amen that!

All the best,
JPGK

[NP3]

I don't care if i can't use the music on unlimited computers, or burn it ten million times...The thing i like about programs like this is that it keeps apple in check as far as what digital rights it will apply.

It scared me when i found out that Apple changed the rights on all iTunes Music Store songs w/ version 4.5 ...not those bought from that point forward. I thought...what would prevent apple in the future from drastically changing the DRM of songs i bought years previous??

What happens if Apple (or most likely the RIAA) decides that we shouldn't be able to do much of anything with our music??

Programs like this give incentive to keep the rights reasonable. The companies know that if they go too far...many will turn to this program. As many others have already said...i'm going to download this just in case for the future...

[jpk]

This is important for those who don't have iPod. Ever tried using an mp3 CD with protected AACs in an mp3 CD player?

All my best,
JPGK

PS. If iTunes' mp3 CDs don't work, use the Finder and put all the files in a folder on the CD.

[slughead]

If you think minor restrictions on your use of a commercial product are a significant infringement on your civil liberties, I despair for democracy.

What is minor and what is major is to be decided once by the consumer.

I decided that iTMS was worth it--the convenience and cost seemed a worthy trade off for a hassle when burning and limited interoperability.

Apple explained all the things I could and could not do, and I accepted that and bought a few songs based on THOSE rules--10 burns, 3 computers.

What they didn't tell me is that they would later change what I can't do with it after I bought it. Like if chevy told me I was no longer allowed to use my passenger power windows... Even if they doubled the horsepower, they still changed the deal!

What if the record companies shut iTMS down and DELETE all your downloaded music, what are you going to do about it? OOPS! You're screwed! Use playfair now while you still can.

It's legal for them to do so. Will you endorse playfair then?

I used playfair to GET OUT of my apparent contract with iTMS, because they broke it when they took from me what was mine: Use of the files with toast, and 3 burns on the same playlist.

Ever hear the old saying "what's mine is mine" ? Well those were my rights, and they took them. No matter what they gave me in return, they still took from me without asking.

And don't give me that crap about "well you can just use itunes 4.2 forever" because when 10.4 rolls around, what do you think it will include? Will they support 4.2 forever? No? Then no, I can't use 4.2 forever.

[AhmedFaisal]

What do you think "agreeing to terms of contract" means? If you don't like the terms of the agreement, you don't use the iTMS. That is what "standing up against that kind of business behavior" is. Not using programs to violate the agreement. The moment you signed up for the iTMS and started using it you "gave in to their demands".

If the terms of service bother you so much you can buy CD's in stores and pay cash to avoid any DRM or tracking of what you bought.

You did you never think about that?

An agreement is only valid if the agreement is legal. Its the same as a prenupt. Of course if I can put in there that I will always get the kids no matter what and don't have to pay any support. I can write any jack I want in there. But that doesn't make it legal, even if my partner was going to sign it. Afterwards she can go to court and they will throw it in the trash where it belongs. So far no one has taken DRM to court to see if those restrictions were even constitutional, until then those agreements !MAY! be legal but they also !MAY NOT! be legal. Until we have a precedent, or better a supreme court ruling, I take my chances.
Regards,

Ahmed

[dcentity2000]

By using the Music Store you actually agree to implied terms. IF YOU BREACH THEM YOU ARE LIABLE FOR VARIOUS CHARGES.

The authors of Fair Play don't actually do the decoding but they ARE accessoried to it, guilty of incitement, aiding and abetting all contractual breaches.

Apple is entitled to claim back losses arising from the use of such an application which may be measured in terms of 'goodness' lost from their negotiations - the protection is part of what earns the contracts which earns the money.

Napster can be seen in a similar light - downloading MP3s from it as backups to CDs was not illegal but actions that were brought about by its mere existance which could have been avoided had Napster taken effective steps resulted in technical theft. Napster got killed.

Bottom line is that the process is technically illegal. You are in the wrong. Sorry. Do it if you want, I can't stop you. But know that you are in the wrong.

This is somewhat over-simplified. I do study the subject. And yes, there is precedent in the field of intellectual theft. Ahmed, I'm sorry, but it appears you are jointly liable for every crime comitted with your application.

The only point at which you are not bound by the terms and conditions of the store is if you negotiate them away with Apple. Until such time YOU are liable.



Rich::

[SeaFox]

I have no problem with someone hacking anyone's DRM, even Apple's. DRM is the last refuge of corporate media greed.

No, the problem I have with Hymn/Playfair is that it plays right into Microsoft's hands. They're popping champagne corks in Redmond over this, because Microsoft now owns the only major DRM scheme that's still unbroken. They should have cracked WM9 before they went after Apple's Fairplay. The record companies will look upon Playfair as a big reason to embrace Windows Media Player and Microsoft's WM9 DRM. I hope everyone likes .WMV files, cuz we'll be seeing a lot more of them in the near future, imho.

Windows Media 9 isn't unbroken. In fact, it was broken before PlayFair was. If you ever went to download the original Playfair DRM cracker (the one that gave you raw AAC data you still couldn't play yet). The writer had another project in the same folder on his website. The project was a WMP9 cracker.

[idkew]

How would this work? Does this mean that if my Mac isn't connected to the internet I can't play my iTMS purchased music? If not, then how can Apple closing down the iTMS stop me playing such music?

i am not sure how apple would de-authorize your computer, but they have the legal ability to do it. it is plain and clear in the user agreement.

[Tulse]

What theft?!?! Are you daft?!? If you purchased the music or the music file or whatever you are entitled to listen to the song.

And you can listen to the song, on 5 machines as AAC, or an infinite number if you convert it to MP3.

Cracking the DRM is
NOT theft. Its breaking a contractual agreement that you made with Apple when you signed up for iTMS.

It may not technically be "theft", but it is breaking the law all the same.

I consider this to be in the same vain as Microsoft and just about everyone else's EULA. Screw the fine print.

I hope you don't have the same attitude when you buy a house, or sign an employment contract.

If I crack the encryption and use it to play music on MY terms without redistributing it who gives a crap.

Apple, among others.

If you want to "Fight the Power", then don't play their game. It's that simple. It's not "Fighting the Power" to agree to their terms, and then break that agreement. If you are really committed to the cause, don't buy DRMed music.

As for Fair Use, I don't see anywhere in the law that says you have a legal right to an exact reproduction of a work (except explicitly in the case of software backups). I think that the ability to make MP3s, and to burn CDs, would count as meeting the requirements of Fair Use. I'd be interested in seeing what other folks think about this point, as it seems pretty crucial to me.

[gemio17]

To the people that think Apple's DRM isn't fair...

WHAT PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS HAVE YOU RUN INTO?

So far the only ones I have heard is...

1. Non-Ipod support
2. Soundbridge Player type support

Other than those 2 issues, what limitations have you actually run into? Where they didn't allow you to do something.

Here's a limitation:
Occasionally, although I don't own a car- I drive places!! I have to rent a car with a (gasp) cd player and no other hook in-no cassette, no aux in- and I'm not buying an iTrip coz I researched/heard they suck. So what am I left with- making a playlist and then burning that to multiple cds. Now with summer coming up, I'm going to be renting cars to get the hell out of NYC on the weekends, so what if I want to make a bunch of mixes? I have to keep track of how many times I have put that song on a mix so I don't go over the limit. Not to mention I have been downloading from iTMS since day 1- I sure as hell don't know how many mixes I've made for myself or others-(we have all been doing this since we were pre-teens-making mixes for friends etc. so don't give me anything about well there you go that's illegal. Pls. spare me that bs) That's where it sucks. I have burned and re-imported my iTMS songs as mp3's for archiving-just in case I go over- It's SO time consuming and wasteful. I don't want to strip the DRM so I can go and throw them up to a p2p or anything like that, but I would like to listen to music that I purchase as many times and ways as I want. Alas, until there is more feedback on hymn, I will keep burning and re-importing.

[cmoney]

How would this work? Does this mean that if my Mac isn't connected to the internet I can't play my iTMS purchased music? If not, then how can Apple closing down the iTMS stop me playing such music?

If you try to play it on a computer that's not already authorized, it goes out to the Internet and connects to Apple's machines. If Apple's machines says you've authorized 5 machines, iTunes replies back saying you've got too many machines authorized. I suppose if iTunes doesn't hear anything back, it'll simply time out and not give you authorization to play the music. So it's probably not a problem as long as the machine you're using now doesn't change ever again (how likely is that?) but I think as soon as the files get played on a new machine, it phones home to Apple to check in. At least that's what I've deduced from my interactions with it.

If in 5 years Microsoft has taken over the music business and Apple has been marginalized once again, it's a very real possibility that iTunes won't have anywhere to call, making this scenario a definite possibility.

I had a similar experience a few months ago. A few years ago, there was a Pepsi/Mountain Dew promotion offering free song downloads that worked through Windows Media Player. All songs had to be authorized before they played and you could only use it on the machine that was authorized. I ended up getting about 10 songs from it and found them again 3 months ago when I went to backup my old computer in preparation to transfer everything to a new computer. I had reformatted that Windows machine since I had downloaded the files so they immediately tried to authorize the music again. Well, with no machine to connect to, it timed out and said it wasn't allowed to play.

With several hundred dollars already spent in iTMS music, I'd hate to lose all that music just because Jobs makes a bad business decision or something stupid like that.

[idkew]

What they didn't tell me is that they would later change what I can't do with it after I bought it. Like if chevy told me I was no longer allowed to use my passenger power windows... Even if they doubled the horsepower, they still changed the deal!

Yes they did. READ THE USER AGREEMENT.

[Tulse]

I decided that iTMS was worth it--the convenience and cost seemed a worthy trade off for a hassle when burning and limited interoperability.

Apple explained all the things I could and could not do, and I accepted that and bought a few songs based on THOSE rules--10 burns, 3 computers.

What they didn't tell me is that they would later change what I can't do with it after I bought it.

[...]

Ever hear the old saying "what's mine is mine" ? Well those were my rights, and they took them. No matter what they gave me in return, they still took from me without asking.


I haven't read the iTMS EULA in detail, but I would be willing to bet that the right to change terms unilaterally was in the original agreement, so you did agree to let Apple make that change. That's the way contracts work.

[Doctor Q]

What we really need is a way for "fair use" to be enforced automatically, so you can make any proper use of music you buy, without ever having to deal with DRM issues, yet you can't make any improper use of music you buy. Even if everyone agreed on the fair use privileges, this is not technically possible. One simple example: you can play a tune for your friend in your living room but you can't charge money to let strangers listen to it at a paid event. Your computer can't tell the difference, so it can't be enforced.

So back to reality.

If Apple could sell you a tune with a serial number identifying your purchase watermarked into the music, and then apply no other restrictions, things would be a lot simpler. It's got a "big brother is watching you" problem, but I'd still prefer to be trusted to stick to fair uses, rather than have arbitrary limits imposed on me within my own home.

Of course, somebody would break the watermarking system, and some people would steal music anyway, so I guess this solution isn't destined to be reality either!

[AhmedFaisal]

I haven't read the iTMS EULA in detail, but I would be willing to bet that the right to change terms unilaterally was in the original agreement, so you did agree to let Apple make that change. That's the way contracts work.

Now that I would like to see defended in court. I don't know about US law that much but I know that in the EU a unilateral change of contract is only acceptable if the other party can terminate the contract because of it without any drawbacks on previously made purchases under the old contract. Meaning, if Apple had an iTMS in say Germany and changed the DRM not only for newly purchased music but only for the old music I could sue Apple for a full refund for any purchase made in the iTMS before because changing contracts on previously purchased items is illegal and Apple would get very seriously fined for violating german contract laws.
Regards,

Ahmed

[frozenstar]

The point is that it seems to be a symptom that people defend others (government, corporations, lawyers etc.) taking away their rights/benefits for their own profit and find that the greatest thing in the world. It happens with DRM, it happens with privacy it happens with TCPA it happens with so many things I can't even list them. And people go out on the street supporting it! You know I am from Germany and I could never fathom why people would support some screaming maggot like Big A. Seeing people like Gus who argue against their own constitutional rights is very educating in that respect.

Americans have a difficult time seeing outside the boundaries defined by capitalism. Real human values are secondary to profit in this part of the world. America is a country comprised of exceptionally gluttunous and ignorant people. :)

It's okay, I'm allowed to say such things, I'm an American. :D

[Wash!!]

Here's a limitation:
Occasionally, although I don't own a car- I drive places!! I have to rent a car with a (gasp) cd player and no other hook in-no cassette, no aux in- and I'm not buying an iTrip coz I researched/heard they suck. So what am I left with- making a playlist and then burning that to multiple cds. Now with summer coming up, I'm going to be renting cars to get the hell out of NYC on the weekends, so what if I want to make a bunch of mixes? I have to keep track of how many times I have put that song on a mix so I don't go over the limit. Not to mention I have been downloading from iTMS since day 1- I sure as hell don't know how many mixes I've made for myself or others-(we have all been doing this since we were pre-teens-making mixes for friends etc. so don't give me anything about well there you go that's illegal. Pls. spare me that bs) That's where it sucks. I have burned and re-imported my iTMS songs as mp3's for archiving-just in case I go over- It's SO time consuming and wasteful. I don't want to strip the DRM so I can go and throw them up to a p2p or anything like that, but I would like to listen to music that I purchase as many times and ways as I want. Alas, until there is more feedback on hymn, I will keep burning and re-importing.

1. Buy a pair of little speakers and plug it into the ipod

2. Most card CD plays mp3 file make rip the song to CD re-rip to mp3 make as many cd as you want.

3. Get a itrip or something like

Get over it...you people are so spoil, i want it,i want iti want iti want iti want iti want iti want it whaaaaaaa is pathetic

[Trekkie]

CD's scratch and there are some that update their computer every year (but I guess you can deauthorize a computer, can't you?).

Not sure if this applies to Windows, but on my iMac and Powerbook if I copy the home directory it works fine on a new machine. Least it did the last time I had to backup my powerbook before I sent it off.

[Trekkie]

Are you serious? They made it so you can't use your purchased files in iPhoto or iMovie? Not even iLife 04 stuff?? Jeash..... this sux.. why not just go back to buying CDs from amazon.com?

Simple quicktime update and it's fine. RTFA people.

[gemio17]

Then Buy the CD.

Buy the CD.

Buy the CD.

iTunes was not ment to be used for those instances you've run into...unfortunately iTunes doesn't suite your particular needs at this time. Find an alternative legal way until it does.

I for one don't want to buy any more cds-i'm done, no more room, I'm not going to pay 17$ for one song- they're too overpriced in the store- don't you get that? A smidgen of intelligence in your response may be better received-the way you have put it is just annoying....That said, I just made some money selling my old cd's on half.com, then with the profits, I bought blank cds to burn my iTMS music on to re-import them as mp3's....and then wastefully stack them up probably never to be used again....ah well. At least the jewel cases are gone- I really have no use for the cover art, liner notes, words for the songs (I'll make 'em up anyway) or a large mound of plastic monstrosity taking up valuable space in my bookshelf.

[AhmedFaisal]

This is somewhat over-simplified. I do study the subject. And yes, there is precedent in the field of intellectual theft. Ahmed, I'm sorry, but it appears you are jointly liable for every crime comitted with your application.

The only point at which you are not bound by the terms and conditions of the store is if you negotiate them away with Apple. Until such time YOU are liable.

And you are liable for not knowing how to disable BOLD text :D and obviously for your lack of reading comprehension :D I didn't create PlayFair, I wish I did but I lack the programming skills. But I'd love to buy the guys behind it a beer one of these days :cool:
Cheers,

Ahmed

[slughead]

The authors of Fair Play don't actually do the decoding but they ARE accessoried to it, guilty of incitement, aiding and abetting all contractual breaches.

Your whole post was made true by the DMCA. Before that you could draw lines on your CDs, crack programs, and do whatever you wanted, so long as you did not pirate.

Personally, I think the DMCA is unconstitutional--or most certainly against the spirit of property rights given by the constitution.

There is no victim when someone cracks the DRM on tracks they already own. That act alone is not immoral, and I would argue in most cases it isn't even linked to piracy in any way so as to imply causation.

If a company wants to make its products useless by trying to limit what you can do, that's one thing, but making you a criminal for doing what you want with your own property is another.

With itunes it's a slightly different case, in that the EULA stated that they can screw you over at any time, and you had to agree to that to begin with. But with CDs and DVD players, you didn't agree to anything, and yet the DMCA allows them to still have control over the actions you perform with the product.

However, I'm pretty sure the constitution makes that agreement illegal. As with many rights, the right to property is impossible to "sign away." That's why people can sue doctors after they sign wavers. That's also why contractual agreements with minors are unenforceable without parental consent.

I don't pirate, and it's not anybody's business WHAT I do until I DO pirate. Piracy is wrong, using products you've previously purchased is not.

[dcentity2000]

Now that I would like to see defended in court. I don't know about US law that much but I know that in the EU a unilateral change of contract is only acceptable if the other party can terminate the contract because of it without any drawbacks on previously made purchases under the old contract. Meaning, if Apple had an iTMS in say Germany and changed the DRM not only for newly purchased music but only for the old music I could sue Apple for a full refund for any purchase made in the iTMS before because changing contracts on previously purchased items is illegal and Apple would get very seriously fined for violating german contract laws.
Regards,

Ahmed

EU contract law states that upon purchasing a track from the ITMS you have made an offer which Apple has accepted, subject to implied and material terms and conditions, both effective subject to intention (see the rather ancient but still effective case of Carbollic Smoke Ball ;) ). Terms can only be altered through two way negotiation and counter offer which does not happen here. UK domestic law does offer some protection given that the terms are pre-written, but only to the effect of being able to return the goods and since these goods devaluate from the outset even that does not operate.

Again: beach of contract or accessory to breach are both serious offences; too small in the case of de-authorising 3 MP3s, huge if you aided in the actions in relation to several hundred.

Apple's losses could run into huge figures through loss of revenue through future contracts.

EU law in this matter overrides German domestic legislation and besides the contracts are technically formed in the US so German domestic leg is kinda pointless...



Rich::

[dcentity2000]

And you are liable for not knowing how to disable BOLD text :D and obviously for your lack of reading comprehension :D I didn't create PlayFair, I wish I did but I lack the programming skills. But I'd love to buy the guys behind it a beer one of these days :cool:
Cheers,

Ahmed

Oh, soz, thought you were somehow involved - my apologies!

ps. Bold stands out more ;)



Rich::

[idkew]

Americans have a difficult time seeing outside the boundaries defined by capitalism. Real human values are secondary to profit in this part of the world. America is a country comprised of exceptionally gluttunous and ignorant people. :)

It's okay, I'm allowed to say such things, I'm an American. :D

TOPIC: PlayFair


not politics. no need for the thread to be wastelanded.

[Doc383]

I've been reading all your posts and am amazed that I haven't read anyone defending the actual PEOPLE that create this music. These are the ones (OK not all of them) that have dedicated thier lives to making music...playing s*%tty gigs in hell holes half their lives until one day a record company finally says..."OK, I'll take a shot on you"...they dump millions of dollars into promoting the band and then people decide when they buy a piece of plastic or a digital file that "THE MUSIC'S MINE...I OWN IT!!, I'll do whatever I want with it".

Do any of you realize that artists have to pay thier record company back for all of the money thay spend on recording the record? The band has to pay the record company back 50% the cost of making a video?? Do you know it costs about $200,000.00 just to work a record to radio so it will be heard? Where do you all think this money comes from? ALBUM SALES!! And the artist doesn't see a cent of royalties until these costs are recouped.

Yes record compainies suck, but it's not just the record companies that get hurt when people stop RESPECTING THE MUSIC!!.

Doc

[greenstork]

EU contract law states that upon purchasing a track from the ITMS you have made an offer which Apple has accepted, subject to implied and material terms and conditions, both effective subject to intention (see the rather ancient but still effective case of Carbollic Smoke Ball ;) ). Terms can only be altered through two way negotiation and counter offer which does not happen here. UK domestic law does offer some protection given that the terms are pre-written, but only to the effect of being able to return the goods and since these goods devaluate from the outset even that does not operate.

Again: beach of contract or accessory to breach are both serious offences; too small in the case of de-authorising 3 MP3s, huge if you aided in the actions in relation to several hundred.

Apple's losses could run into huge figures through loss of revenue through future contracts.

EU law in this matter overrides German domestic legislation and besides the contracts are technically formed in the US so German domestic leg is kinda pointless...



Rich::

So the EU has explicit laws about the iTMS already, before it's even released in Europe. How interesting, tell me more.

[Rower_CPU]

Keep on topic and leave out the inflammatory comments and insults, folks.

People who continue will have posts deleted and/or receive a "time out".

[frozenstar]

TOPIC: PlayFair
not politics. no need for the thread to be wastelanded.

You're absolutely right. My apologies.

[AhmedFaisal]

EU contract law states that upon purchasing a track from the ITMS you have made an offer which Apple has accepted, subject to implied and material terms and conditions, both effective subject to intention (see the rather ancient but still effective case of Carbollic Smoke Ball ;) ). Terms can only be altered through two way negotiation and counter offer which does not happen here. UK domestic law does offer some protection given that the terms are pre-written, but only to the effect of being able to return the goods and since these goods devaluate from the outset even that does not operate.

Again: beach of contract or accessory to breach are both serious offences; too small in the case of de-authorising 3 MP3s, huge if you aided in the actions in relation to several hundred.

Apple's losses could run into huge figures through loss of revenue through future contracts.

EU law in this matter overrides German domestic legislation and besides the contracts are technically formed in the US so German domestic leg is kinda pointless...

You make business on our soil, you follow our law, even if the US may think otherwise. That aside, I still would like to see a legal precedent on that matter. It still remains to be investigated if the terms in the iTMS Agreement are acceptable under german/EU law, which, neither you nor I know since we lack a precedent. I have a pretty good feeling that alone the way they set up their right to change the rules of the contract at any given time including previously purchased items is not legal neither under german nor EU law.
Regards,

Ahmed

[space2go]

EU contract law states that upon purchasing a track from the ITMS you have made an offer which Apple has accepted,

Yeah and next thing is you tell us Apple is the consumer and the people buying stuff are multinational corporations that have to follow antitrust legislation..
:rolleyes:

[Windowlicker]

Now that you can no longer use iTMS songs in iPhoto slideshows or iMovies, I actually have an interest in looking into this.

I totally understand your point, but with iMovie, if you really need the music there, just burn it as an audio cd and rip the stuff back to computer.. iMovie will then recompress the sound anyway. ok it would be easier without the cd step, but if you really need it, it's no problem and doesn't cost you much anything.

[AhmedFaisal]

I've been reading all your posts and am amazed that I haven't read anyone defending the actual PEOPLE that create this music. These are the ones (OK not all of them) that have dedicated thier lives to making music...playing s*%tty gigs in hell holes half their lives until one day a record company finally says..."OK, I'll take a shot on you"...they dump millions of dollars into promoting the band and then people decide when they buy a piece of plastic or a digital file that "THE MUSIC'S MINE...I OWN IT!!, I'll do whatever I want with it".

Do any of you realize that artists have to pay thier record company back for all of the money thay spend on recording the record? The band has to pay the record company back 50% the cost of making a video?? Do you know it costs about $200,000.00 just to work a record to radio so it will be heard? Where do you all think this money comes from? ALBUM SALES!! And the artist doesn't see a cent of royalties until these costs are recouped.

Yes record compainies suck, but it's not just the record companies that get hurt when people stop RESPECTING THE MUSIC!!.

Oh I have a lot of respect for artists, especially indie ones that write their own music. Funny thing is, those guys are not clones out of RIAA's spartii cloning cylinders and are not their creation and not under their contracts. They play in smaller clubs and they sell and promote their own music. About 80% of the 6000 CDs I legally own are from these kind of artists, so I do think about them, and how much it was worth spending 30$ - 50$ for one of their concerts.
Regards,

Ahmed

[bpd115]

I totally understand your point, but with iMovie, if you really need the music there, just burn it as an audio cd and rip the stuff back to computer.. iMovie will then recompress the sound anyway. ok it would be easier without the cd step, but if you really need it, it's no problem and doesn't cost you much anything.

For the third time, you CAN use the tracks in iPhoto and iMovie.

[gemio17]

I've been reading all your posts and am amazed that I haven't read anyone defending the actual PEOPLE that create this music. These are the ones (OK not all of them) that have dedicated thier lives to making music...playing s*%tty gigs in hell holes half their lives until one day a record company finally says..."OK, I'll take a shot on you"...they dump millions of dollars into promoting the band and then people decide when they buy a piece of plastic or a digital file that "THE MUSIC'S MINE...I OWN IT!!, I'll do whatever I want with it".

Do any of you realize that artists have to pay thier record company back for all of the money thay spend on recording the record? The band has to pay the record company back 50% the cost of making a video?? Do you know it costs about $200,000.00 just to work a record to radio so it will be heard? Where do you all think this money comes from? ALBUM SALES!! And the artist doesn't see a cent of royalties until these costs are recouped.

Yes record compainies suck, but it's not just the record companies that get hurt when people stop RESPECTING THE MUSIC!!.

Doc


Ever seen Cribs on MTV?? :D Poor babies....:rolleyes:

-I know it's not the point, but whenever people start crying about the artists all I can think about is Cribs and all the parading around a lot of these so called "artists" do. I have no problem buying alt./indie music, but from the supastars- the music I do actually like, if I can burn it from a friend, I have no problem with that. It may be wrong, illegal, etc. but I don't care! On the otherhand, I did buy a William Hung song coz I felt bad for him and think he should make as much money as possible before his 15 minutes are up!

[ktrout]

But, in the case of spyware, perfectly legal (as far as I have heard). The principle is pretty simple -- if you agree to it, you should keep your word.



I am not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt that that is true in law. You can indeed make backups of your music. You can keep your music on a limited number of multiple machines, and, if that is too onerous, you can back up your music to MP3 as much as you want (sure, it's in a degraded form, but copying vinyl records and cassette tapes also introduced degradation, and I don't recall people complaining about fair use violations).

As it happens, I am a lawyer (although copyright is not my area). If you look at the statutory definintion of "fair use" Congress was either lazy or flexible, depending on your point of view:

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

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

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

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

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

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

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

Much of this law is undeveloped at this point. Presumably it will become clearer in time. As to simple backing up, it is hard to imagine that is not fair use. Backing it up on your ten closest friends' hard drives is more questionable. I should point out that home videotaping was veary nearly found to be an infringement of copyright--Sony won in the supreme court (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/768/) 5-4.

(As an aside, in my opinion, the conservative outrage over so-called "activist judges" is nonsense. Congress often passes deliberately vague statutes with the intent that they should be developed in the courts, and sometimes passes deliberately unconstitutional laws to score political points).

[SeaFox]

ps. Bold stands out more ;)
Rich::

But what you are saying does not. <small grin>
Please don't boldface all your text, it makes posts harder to read overall.

[space2go]

I've been reading all your posts and am amazed that I haven't read anyone defending the actual PEOPLE that create this music.

In what way are the artists hurt when I - after BUYING their music - do whatever I like with it ? Except sharing that is. (I'd argue about that as well but that's OT here.)

One person paid for it, one person uses it and whatever said person does with it is nobody else's business.
Yes government(s) this means you as well!

[123]

Since when is it my 'right' to do what I please with music I did not record, write or create? Must have missed that in the constitution.

This is simple. They are saying we have this product which you can do this this and this with for a price of .99 cents. If you say "HEY GREAT DEAL" then buy it.

If you think the restrictions are too much, don't buy it. End of story.


Ever ripped a CD? Here's news for you, it's illegal to make copies. And I'm sure you know that, you even knew that before you bought the CD.

If you think the restrictions are too much, don't buy it. End of story.

[1macker1]

So what's wrong with the program. Apple's DRM doesn't stop piracy, if a person burns and then imports the songs back into iTunes in the Mp3 format. If apple gets upset about this, it isn't because they give a ***** about artists losing money, it's about Apple being scared that they won't sell as many iPods.

[123]

So buy a CD, and put up with the very minor hassle of ripping it.

You're not supposed to make copies of CDs.

[AhmedFaisal]

You're not supposed to make copies of CDs.

:D This is one of those times when I wish for a lawsuit about this with someone like Larry Flint as the defendant pouring a bag of Britney Spears CDs in front of the Judge and then taking a leak on it and asking the judge with an innocent smile: "Can I do this with my CDs or is that illegal too now?" :D
Cheers,

Ahmed

[idkew]

I've been reading all your posts and am amazed that I haven't read anyone defending the actual PEOPLE that create this music...

Doc

because the majority of music out there is an investment. it has nothing to do with art anymore. that majority of musicians are no longer artists, they are business people.

[cmoney]

Yes record compainies suck, but it's not just the record companies that get hurt when people stop RESPECTING THE MUSIC!!.

Doc

Except NO ONE here is arguing for the "right" to pirate music (that I've seen at least). What people are arguing for is the right to use LEGALLY obtained music in ways that are TECHNICALLY against the agreement. e.g.: I bought a song on iTMS, I'd like to use it on my Creative Labs MP3 player from 1999 and keep the tags so when I look at that LCD screen, I know what song is playing.

TECHNICALLY, using hymn (and perhaps lame) to accomplish this this is a breach of contract because I agreed to that EULA. However, no one is harmed, there is no victim, money has been exchanged and the copyright owners (artists included) have been compensated. (Unless the record companies would argue I should be required by law to purchase another copy of the same song for playback on a device other than an iPod. Now, maybe Apple would have a stronger argument...)

Or e.g.: I'd like to ensure that I can still listen to the music I legally obtained in case Apple is kaput and the technology is obsoleted.

[SeaFox]

An agreement is only valid if the agreement is legal. Its the same as a prenupt. Of course if I can put in there that I will always get the kids no matter what and don't have to pay any support. I can write any jack I want in there. But that doesn't make it legal, even if my partner was going to sign it. Afterwards she can go to court and they will throw it in the trash where it belongs. So far no one has taken DRM to court to see if those restrictions were even constitutional, until then those agreements !MAY! be legal but they also !MAY NOT! be legal. Until we have a precedent, or better a supreme court ruling, I take my chances.
Regards,

Ahmed

In the prenup example you site:
1) Agreements of this type only cover financial assets. I don't believe you can write custody into one because what was deemed best for the well being of the child would overrule it, it would be a waste of time.

2) The prenup example the documant was taken to court and ruled invalid. This is the legal way of doing things. If you find the iTMS terms of service violate your right to fair use, go to court. That is the way you fight this correctly. Breaking the copyright restriction is no more legal simply because you feel the terms should be invalid. Until a court says so, they are.


Furthermore, you did get to see the terms of service before you agreed, and you did agree. If you felt them too restrictive, why did you agree at all? Because you were planning on violating them the whole time? Yeah, that will look real brilliant to the judge.

You can avoid all this by buying the CD's. The Cd's are too expensive? That's your opinion (the record companies feel otherwise) and your choice not to buy them. You have a choice, use the iTMS with it's retrictions, or pay for the CD's, you get what you pay for.

You continue to post like you have no choice but to use the iTMS, you always have a choice.

[cmoney]

Ever ripped a CD? Here's news for you, it's illegal to make copies. And I'm sure you know that, you even knew that before you bought the CD.

If you think the restrictions are too much, don't buy it. End of story.

So it's illegal for me to make a backup copy of a CD to keep in my car in case my car is stolen or someone breaks in a steals my CDs or the CD player in my car chokes and scratches the CD to hell? Yeah, it's illegal but I'd like to see the RIAA take that case to court. I'd like to see the headlines: "RIAA Prosecutes 3 million for Illegal Use of Backup CDs in autmobiles. Ford, Alpine Radio, Sony Automotive Named as Codefendants."

Anyone care to comment on "letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law" and whether it applies here?

[cmoney]

You can avoid all this by buying the CD's. The Cd's are too expensive? That's your opinion (the record companies feel otherwise) and your choice not to buy them.


Of course, weren't they found guilty of illegal price fixing? In that case it's not just my opinion that they're too expensive.

Also, IMHO, CDs remain open for only so long, you can bet the record companies are spending more time trying to close the open CD loophole than trying to find a better business model to compete with new technologies. It's much better in the US, but in lots of countries around the world, CDs are no longer a valid option as they've got DRM up the wazoo.

[bpd115]

Of course, weren't they found guilty of illegal price fixing? In that case it's not just my opinion that they're too expensive.

Also, IMHO, CDs remain open for only so long, you can bet the record companies are spending more time trying to close the open CD loophole than trying to find a better business model to compete with new technologies. It's much better in the US, but in lots of countries around the world, CDs are no longer a valid option as they've got DRM up the wazoo.


Yes they were found guilty of that and I got a nice check in the mail as well :p

And there is no CD DRM that a sharpie won't fix.

Hey, instead of Fairuse or Hymn, they should call it "Digital Sharpie" :D

[dontmakemehurtu]

:(

[RogerQ]

I have to keep track of how many times I have put that song on a mix so I don't go over the limit.

There's not a per-song limit, just a playlist limit. So you don't have to keep track. If you hit the wall on your playlist burns, just swap a song.

This is where the iTMS licences kicks kiester of those like WalMart, et al. Per-song limit means you absolutely will hit the wall at some point. Playlist limit gives you infinite access to a song.

--RQ

[cmoney]

And there is no CD DRM that a sharpie won't fix.

Hey, instead of Fairuse or Hymn, they should call it "Digital Sharpie" :D

Good point, so I'm writing to the RIAA to get them to declare the Sharpie a "DMCA circumvention device."

[123]

So it's illegal for me to make a backup copy of a CD to keep in my car in case my car is stolen or someone breaks in a steals my CDs or the CD player in my car chokes and scratches the CD to hell? Yeah, it's illegal but I'd like to see the RIAA take that case to court. I'd like to see the headlines: "RIAA Prosecutes 3 million for Illegal Use of Backup CDs in autmobiles. Ford, Alpine Radio, Sony Automotive Named as Codefendants."

Anyone care to comment on "letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law" and whether it applies here?

No, "fair use" is the "spirit of the law". So, it's probably not illegal to make that copy to keep in your car (as it's for personal use, published, and you own a legally acquired copy of the work, besides, there's no effect on the market). The point I was trying to make is that if it weren't for fair use, it would be illegal to make any copies whatsoever. No more legal than copying a song you bought from iTunes.

[benoda]

People keep saying if you don't like it just go buy a CD or single.

That's fine an all, but why should buying a song off of iTMS be any different than buying the CD/single?

Shouldn't they be the same? That's what I would hope for at least - in an ideal world. So I expect to have the same options if I buy from iTMS as I would walking down the street and buying a CD.

That's what I expect, and as a result I am resistant to constraints.

[space2go]

Good point, so I'm writing to the RIAA to get them to declare the Sharpie a "DMCA circumvention device."

That's a start. Even better would be to get them to declare every device that actually can play music a DMCA circimvention device as every program that cracks any kind of DRM needs some hardware that can read the stuff first..

[SeaFox]

Of course, weren't they found guilty of illegal price fixing? In that case it's not just my opinion that they're too expensive.


Right. It was a court opinion too. But they were fined/forced to pay refunds/whatever for that action. The ruling never said "everyone who uses the iTunes Music Store gets to break the DRM" so that has nothing to do with the current state of CD prices or really any of this discussion.

[JohnGalt]

Testing in my shop also shows (as stated in post #77) with latest iTunes & Quicktime that movies (.mov) will only play sound on Authorized Computers. Seems to be outside the spirit of Jobs saying you 'own' the song. And it means you need to keep track of what you ripped vs what you bought so your slideshows in QT will play the sound.

[riots]

I think it's you who doesn't get it. If you want to use licensed music for a purpose not in the agreement, then you shouldn't have made the agreement. A person is only as good as his or her word.

elo

Absolutely! And also allowing the agreement to be breached in this manner will only harm iTunes and Apple. Do we really want that? A few people abusing the system could hurt the millions of people who are playing by the rules.

[ethernet76]

If you have several computers (like I do), why can't you just have one copy of the file in iTunes and share the library to other iTunes computers over your network (like I do)? Works really well.


You know that you have to authorize the local computer for playing that song even if the file is on another computer.

[tgilbey]

Are you serious? They made it so you can't use your purchased files in iPhoto or iMovie? Not even iLife 04 stuff?? Jeash..... this sux.. why not just go back to buying CDs from amazon.com?

Think you hit the nail on the head. I do have to agree with all the people who say you enter into an agreement with apple and then have to honour it.....

Why are people so obsessed with ITMS? Yes, it is very easy and quick to use. But not SO much easier than amazon that it'll make me endure far less choice, a lossy compressed version, and DRM/ operating system-specific controls, all for a price that's not much less.

So....if you don't like it, go and buy your own copy for about the same price which will sound exactly as the sound engineer and band intended, choose from pretty much all the acts under the sun, and rip it into your library so you get the digital ease of use as well... and if you want to trade it to encourage the record companies not to screw us over any longer.....YOU CAN!

[rbrugman]

I really don't see why Apple and the rest of the industry is up in arms over Playfair, or Hymn or whatever you want to call it. It doesn't allow you do decode other users m4p's. You still need to own a license to the song for it to work. If you try to decode music that isn't yours, it gives you the error "Failed to get DRM key for user". It's just a shortcut instead of re-ripping.

Robert

[ethernet76]

Here's the problem. It's not the artists who are screaming for DRM. Only record companies are pushing the issue, and the artists have just as much to lose at the recording companies.

And copyright law agrees with them -- your rights to someone else's artistic productions are not unlimited.

The law also said slaves were 3/5s a person, women aren't allowed to vote, and blacks could be forced to attend a seperate school from white children just as long it was seperate, but equal.

If you think minor restrictions on your use of a commercial product are a significant infringement on your civil liberties, I despair for democracy.

Nig***, *******, s*** are just a few words from thousands in the English language. Yet people don't believe they should be able to be spoken publicly because they are considered profane. Surely you won't object to the outlaw of these words, for there are 500,000 other words to chose from.

[mangoduck]

somewhere inside everyone lies a pirate. whether one actually believes that unauthorized use and duplication of copyrighted software and media is morally wrong or not, they still love to download, have, and share. even metallica loves a free lunch.

sometimes this communal ideal is strong enough to inspire the creation of networks and utilities that circumvent copy protection and enable absolute free use and trade. though superficially these organizations and authors may deny it, this is the driving force behind kazaa, gnutella, decss, the old napster, and many other projects, living and deceased.

fairplay, now hymn, is one of these. it fits the description.

now, i agree with the main principle behind hymn, which is if one legally purchases something, in this case a song, they should be able to use it privately in any way they see fit. regrettably, some will abuse this and distribute the unregulated files, but the author(s) of hymn can't be held directly responsible for the misbehaviour of users.

so, that's it, right? all the bases covered? not exactly, since transacting with the itunes music store binds one to a contract. a legal document that outlines in specifics what one can and cannot do with apple's product. whether such strict guidelines are fair, or even completely obscene, is moot, for the very act of downloading a song represents a signature. going back on this agreement makes one just as low as the organizations drafting and enforcing digital rights management laws - moreso in the eyes of the justice department.

supporting the principle of hymn, free use, does not mean one endorses hymn itself, nor piracy and lawlessness. certainly it is not just cause to author and distribute drm-disabling, contract-mangling software. rather it means one condemns apple's drm, the reason hymn was created to begin with. we don't need more hacks and utilities, what we need is a petition and formal protest to the contract itself. we need a proactive movement aimed at the source.

to digress for a moment, however, if apple had not settled on the restrictions they did, it's doubtful the itunes store would have made it out the door. surely apple strived to make the legal aspect as liberal as they could without compromising success, and for that we owe them thanks.

but now that it's out, now that it's an established and widely successful system, perhaps certain key people would be willing to bend in order to better appease consumers. that's us, folks. businesses just love to appease us, because what are they alone. we have the home field advantage.

[ifjake]

music can't go with you everywhere you go. the advancement of the digital format for music has allowed for some very nice things to happen. music used to not be portible, or suffered in quality as time went on. music once had to be live to exist. there were limitations to what you can do then and there are limitations to what you can do now. i just try to enjoy the music.

[RubberChicken]

Now that you can no longer use iTMS songs in iPhoto slideshows or iMovies, I actually have an interest in looking into this.

You realise that playfair is probably the reason why you can no longer open iTMS songs in other iLife apps. Apple has done an awesome job convincing a group of extremely conservative music moguls that people are inherently honest - and so Apple's originally modest level of DRM would be more than sufficient. Make it easy for them to be honest and they will be. Some poeple seem dedicated to proving Apple wrong. Everytime some dropkick with too much time on their hands works around the DRM, Apple has to tighten it up to keep the moguls happy. Nothing they do will stop the dedicated hacker, but does make it progressively harder for the legitimate user. Apply some logic and you can see where this is leading... a point may be reached where access becomes too restrictive and legitimate users will abandon the model as too much hassle. Apple is trying to balance the needs of the users against the music moguls, the last thing most users or Apple needs is creative little anarchists like plafyfair. I'm losing intertest in iTMS and is has not even been launched in Australia yet, and may never be at this rate.

[ryanw]

Think you hit the nail on the head. I do have to agree with all the people who say you enter into an agreement with apple and then have to honour it.....

Why are people so obsessed with ITMS? Yes, it is very easy and quick to use. But not SO much easier than amazon that it'll make me endure far less choice, a lossy compressed version, and DRM/ operating system-specific controls, all for a price that's not much less.

So....if you don't like it, go and buy your own copy for about the same price which will sound exactly as the sound engineer and band intended, choose from pretty much all the acts under the sun, and rip it into your library so you get the digital ease of use as well... and if you want to trade it to encourage the record companies not to screw us over any longer.....YOU CAN!

The thing that is amazing about this whole thing is that Record Labels make more money off a DIGITAL sale off the iTMS then a CD sale. Distributors charge a whole lot more for PHYSICAL Ds in PHYSICAL stores in PHYSICAL SHELVES. PLUS you have to PHYSICALLY duplicate the CDs, inserts, assemble the cds, etc. You'd think the labels would be screaming to have everything digital by now. Plug in your iPod and drag tracks over for $.99 each instead of buying a physical CD in a physical store. You'd think they'd be screaming for this. They got it, and they are baggin it.

You know what? I just thought about this. I bet it's not the record labels crying and screaming. I bet it's the DISTRIBUTORS that are trying to make this thing fail. I bet they're lobbying the RIAA and other assosications to complain and make iTMS jack the prices up so people go back to Amazon, BestBuy, TowerRecords, etc...

[Gus]

Do people take the time to actually read a thread anymore? Twice now, relative portions of the copyright law have been posted involving copyright coverage and "fair use", yet some of you are determined to avoid the actual legality issue of piracy.

Back to the real topic, however. My point earlier about the photocopying of music was that the more that it has been done, the fewer new pieces that have been published, and the higher the prices have gone on those that are. It is a direct result of stealing this music. Yes, at kinkos it might cost more money to photocopy a score and parts, but if your school has a copy machine, and you have unlimited access to it, it is not out the realm of possibility for it to be done, and it is, in fact, done all of the time.

I don't care if you do or do not like "pop" artists that do make tons of money. I don't care if you're jealous of the people on "cribs" who have nice houses, cars, etc. Justy because you don't like the artist, or think that you deserve those things more than they do doesn't give you the right to do what you want with their product. Despite what you think, you do not own their music. You may own the medium on which it is encased (the physical CD itself or perhaps even the actual 1s and 0s), but the content is theirs. By the way, most of those artists on cribs-I bet they don't actually own a lot of those things. Many of those items are paid for through credit or advances on future sales. They don't make the sales, they lose the nice things.

Regards,
Gus

[eric_n_dfw]

I just tested it - you can still extract to aiff (or any other QuickTime codec):

But I realized that it's just transcoding it from AAC to DV and then to whatever format you pick in the Quicktime exporter so it really is no better than burning an Audio (Red-Book) CD and then ripping it back as Aiff. In fact, the CD method is one less generation so it's probably better. I've been using the iMovie way of doing it and have noticed absolutely no loss in audio quality in my final DV and DVD products from Final Cut Pro.

Now if I could just figure out the maze of rules involved in getting the rights to use copywrited music in videos I do for profit like wedding videos. (but that's a whole other can of worms!) :rolleyes:

[cjc343]

I've downloaded it, and I'm going to use it. I will not distribute the songs on P2P networks or give them to friends, I would only use it for things that I can't do when the DRM is still there.


When I want to obtain music, I immediately rule out all choices besides iTMS and Poisoned.

Now, to those of you who have said that if I don't agree with the EULA I should not buy from iTunes, do you think the RIAA would rather I purchase from iTunes and then strip the DRM so I can play it over my network? or do you think that I should start up poisoned and download it in higher quality at a faster speed for free?

I am inclined to choose iTunes, but without fairplay, I would use Poisoned.

now, pick one, violate the EULA but pay $1? Or get it free? I picked the first one, so if you still don't think I should buy from the iTMS, PM me, I will switch over to only using Poisoned....

[soosy]

For the third time, you CAN use the tracks in iPhoto and iMovie.

Yes, but you can also only playback on Authorized computers (iPhoto slideshow quicktimes, anyway) which seriously limits the usefulness IMO.

My point meant to be that the more strict the DRM is, the less incentive there is to buy from iTMS. The RIAA obviously just doesn't get it.

I've only bought a couple albums and a few songs from the iTMS... and for now, I think I will definitely stick with CDs.

[cmoney]

Do people take the time to actually read a thread anymore? Twice now, relative portions of the copyright law have been posted involving copyright coverage and "fair use", yet some of you are determined to avoid the actual legality issue of piracy.

Back to the real topic, however. My point earlier about the photocopying of music was that the more that it has been done, the fewer new pieces that have been published, and the higher the prices have gone on those that are. It is a direct result of stealing this music. Yes, at kinkos it might cost more money to photocopy a score and parts, but if your school has a copy machine, and you have unlimited access to it, it is not out the realm of possibility for it to be done, and it is, in fact, done all of the time.

I don't care if you do or do not like "pop" artists that do make tons of money. I don't care if you're jealous of the people on "cribs" who have nice houses, cars, etc. Justy because you don't like the artist, or think that you deserve those things more than they do doesn't give you the right to do what you want with their product. Despite what you think, you do not own their music. You may own the medium on which it is encased (the physical CD itself or perhaps even the actual 1s and 0s), but the content is theirs. By the way, most of those artists on cribs-I bet they don't actually own a lot of those things. Many of those items are paid for through credit or advances on future sales. They don't make the sales, they lose the nice things.

Regards,
Gus

Again, count on your thumb how many people are fighting for their "right" to pirate the music! Notice in everyone's argument here, no one is saying give me free music, everybody's saying they simply want the ability to copy the music, intact, into another format. Again: PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO COPY THE MUSIC THEY ALREADY PAID FOR TO ANOTHER FORMAT TO PLAY IT ON ANOTHER DEVICE.

To bring it into your sheet music analogy: let's say I'm a music director, I find some sheet music I want my orchestra to perform. I go buy the sheet music for $200 for say 10 parts but wait, they only gave me 1 copy of each part. Are you saying it's still illegal for me to photocopy each part, say 2nd viola so that 5 different violas can play it?

[LethalWolfe]

Oh, the copyright owners are having their rights trampled on? The same record labels that have been engaging in price-fixing practices for years?

With regard to the DMCA, I entirely agree. I attack that piece of legislation every opportunity I have. Mix the DMCA and the Patriot Act, throw in a few Republicans, and you've got yourself a recipe for statism.

My apologies for the political commentary. I just couldn't help it. And in all fairness, the Democrats are just as bad, just in a different way.


Yeah, 'cause only bands signed by the *evil* major labels are the ones that have their work kicked around on P2P networks. :rolleyes:
You can't pick and choose whose rights should be upheld and whose it's okay to trample.


Lethal

[dloomer]

So back to the Roku Soundbridge thing. Let's say I had hypothetically spent $500, $1000 on iTMS songs, then sometime later decided I wanted a Soundbridge. My m4ps are unplayable on a Soundbridge. However, I can burn all those songs to CD and re-rip them, and not make anyone unhappy. Of course, this would be a big hassle, waste a lot of CD-Rs (which I would probably just throw away) and mean some loss of quality (which I may or may not be able to notice).

Or, I could re-purchase all those CDs, rip them, and have equal-quality m4as without making anyone unhappy. The drawbacks here are obvious, though.

I'm not a screw-the-industry kind of guy. I'm also not too sure I'd feel "entitled" to the music I had already bought. But, given the burdens brought on by options A and B, I'm sorry, I'd go for option C and strip out the DRM. Some of you will argue "you should have thought of this when you made the agreement with Apple, even if you didn't expect to buy a SoundBridge" and I'd listen to that, it's a rational argument. But seriously, in the end I would still go with option C and not feel much of an ethical problem with it.

Now, I'm a big Apple fan, and as for the whole Apple music monopoly thing, so far that doesn't seem like too bad a thing but then apple needs to complete the puzzle. Bring on the Apple set-top box, and a bunch of us on this thread would have nothing to bitch about.

Until then ... long live Option C.

[cmoney]

And don't forget with option A, it also means you lose all the tag information so when you're scrolling through those 750 songs, it'll simply say "track 1, track 2, track 3, track 4" unless you go through the hassle of entering all the metadata again for 750 songs.

But seriously, in the end I would still go with option C and not feel much of an ethical problem with it.

Exactly, because IMHO I don't think there really is an ethical problem with it. The artists have been paid, Apple has been paid, the record companies have been paid.

[jcshas]

That's what I like to see -- political protest about not being able to copy music. Yep, that's a real pressing issue.

I've got news for you -- rights far more important than being able to copy music are already being taken from you. Yet you want to organize around music copying? With those priorities, I hope you get the government and corporations you deserve...

Ah sure, but let's try to stay on topic here folks. :confused:

[Tulse]

When I want to obtain music, I immediately rule out all choices besides iTMS and Poisoned.

[...]

now, pick one, violate the EULA but pay $1? Or get it free? I picked the first one, so if you still don't think I should buy from the iTMS, PM me, I will switch over to only using Poisoned....

Hey, how about option 3: "buy a CD like 99.9% of the law-abiding music-buying public"?

I am truly aghast at the moral lassitude expressed by many folks in this thread. The sense of entitlement is truly staggering. Just for the record: Inconvenience, expense, laziness, outrage at artist's lifestyles, and anger at the RIAA are not morally defensible reasons to break a contract. (I think there may be legal questions about the legitimacy of the iTMS EULA, but that's a different matter.)


The law also said slaves were 3/5s a person, women aren't allowed to vote, and blacks could be forced to attend a seperate school from white children just as long it was seperate, but equal.

Good Lord -- you are actually going to equate copyright law and slavery? I don't even have a snarky comeback for that...I'm just too dumbfounded...

PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO COPY THE MUSIC THEY ALREADY PAID FOR TO ANOTHER FORMAT TO PLAY IT ON ANOTHER DEVICE.

Some people also want a pony, but that doesn't mean they get it.

This isn't a matter of what people "want", but what they legally agreed to.

[longofest]

Okay... has anyone actually tried this app??? It isn't working for me. I did everything it told me to do, with iTunes both open and closed at the time, and it keeps coming up with the error "iTunes Key or an iPod couldn't be found."

I do happen to have an iPod, and when I turned on Disk mode, it worked. But that doesn't help people who don't have an iPod, or don't have theirs with them.

Either way, this app should only be used in honest ways. I don't think that the quote from the Supreme Court Justice that is included in the ReadMe is actually from any court case (I think it was just some random quote that he pulled, but I might be wrong).

[bpd115]

Yes, but you can also only playback on Authorized computers (iPhoto slideshow quicktimes, anyway) which seriously limits the usefulness IMO..


Actually I do not believe this is new with iTunes 4.5....I'm pretty sure it's always been that way with iphoto quicktime slideshows.

[SiliconAddict]

And you can listen to the song, on 5 machines as AAC, or an infinite number if you convert it to MP3.

I can't convert a DRMed song to MP3. I've tried. And I can't listen to my song on my Pocket PC. I can listen to plain ordinary AAC a.k.a MP4, WMA's, OGG's, MP3's and just about anything else but not FPed AAC files. The only device I can use is an iPod.


It may not technically be "theft", but it is breaking the law all the same.

So was drinking during prohibition. Your point?


I hope you don't have the same attitude when you buy a house, or sign an employment contract.

Please tell me you aren’t seriously trying to make a comparison between a $100,000 purchase and a person’s job to the joke that is Apple’s DRM TOA. Thank god if I buy a house in most cases I can remodel the inside and if I’m not allowed I can go somewhere else. If I’m not allowed to do that with the tunes I get off of iTMS where do I go? Would I go out and buy a 400,000 house (A crap load of CD’s) instead? No in the case of the realestate market I have choices. The RIAA has seen fite to give us NO choices. Either pay through the nose with CD’s or get F-ed with DRM. Thanks but I’ll take door number 3.
Apple isn’t losing any money off of me ripping the DRM wrapper off of the track. The sole reason for a DRMed song is to stop pirating. Period. There is NO other reason so if I’m not pirating a track then there is no point of DRMing a song is there? If fact all Apple is doing is screwing me over while someone else actually DOES pirate a tune.
Oh and by all rights I should get the chair because 3 weeks ago I finished ripping the last of my 348 DVD’s onto my server. Oh god! I’m going to burn in **** for my sins. Oh wait. All I use it for is a storage location so when I go on a trip or am out and about I can copy over a dozen or so movies to my laptop without taking the original media with me. THAT is fair use. That is what a consumer should be allowed to do without Apple, the RIAA, the MPAA, or anyone else looking down their nose as if we are being a bad little boy. NO DINNER FOR YOU! But as I said before for now I’m content with iTMS and fairplay’s rights. But make no mistake if I want to do something different with the songs that goes beyond what Apple’s FPed AAC allows I will convert them over in a heartbeat.



Apple, among others.

Tell me who the others are other then Apple and the RIAA. Do you think the artist gives a crap as long as I pay for the music? Heck I question if even the RIAA cares since I'm shelling out the cash. No it’s just Apple and why? Because they are covering their ASSets.

If you want to "Fight the Power", then don't play their game. It's that simple. It's not "Fighting the Power" to agree to their terms, and then break that agreement. If you are really committed to the cause, don't buy DRMed music.

As for Fair Use, I don't see anywhere in the law that says you have a legal right to an exact reproduction of a work (except explicitly in the case of software backups). I think that the ability to make MP3s, and to burn CDs, would count as meeting the requirements of Fair Use. I'd be interested in seeing what other folks think about this point, as it seems pretty crucial to me.[/QUOTE]

That makes NO sense. If I am allowed to circumvent Apple's DRM through creating an MP3 (Even though as I stated before I CAN NOT do this with FPed AAC files.) or through creating a CD then why would or SHOULD I not be allowed to do the same with their DRM? Again this is to stop pirates. I'm not a freaking pirate.

[Gus]

To bring it into your sheet music analogy: let's say I'm a music director, I find some sheet music I want my orchestra to perform. I go buy the sheet music for $200 for say 10 parts but wait, they only gave me 1 copy of each part. Are you saying it's still illegal for me to photocopy each part, say 2nd viola so that 5 different violas can play it?

Yes, that is what the law says. If you want another copy of the part, you have to order that part from the publisher, even though most do not. It is illegal to perform any piece in public off of photocpoied music. While there are a very few exceptions to this rule, (such as a copy of an individual part used for analysis in an educational setting that will never be reproduced or performed) most people do not bother with the right way to do it.

You have to admit though, that no publisher would only give you one second viola part, but I got your point.

It's been fun debating, but I think I'll just go back to trolling for a while. You all have fun though!

Regards,
Gus

[Tulse]

I can't convert a DRMed song to MP3. I've tried. And I can't listen to my song on my Pocket PC. I can listen to plain ordinary AAC a.k.a MP4, WMA's, OGG's, MP3's and just about anything else but not FPed AAC files. The only device I can use is an iPod.

Well, presumably you knew this before you purchased the songs, so I don't see how that's an excuse. In any case, you can convert a DRMed song to MP3, through burning it to CD and re-ripping. Yes, it loses sound quality, but it doesn't circumvent the agreement you made.

Please tell me you aren’t seriously trying to make a comparison between a $100,000 purchase and a person’s job to the joke that is Apple’s DRM TOA. Thank god if I buy a house in most cases I can remodel the inside and if I’m not allowed I can go somewhere else. If I’m not allowed to do that with the tunes I get off of iTMS where do I go?

That's not the analogy -- the analogy is buying a house in a deed-restricted neighbourhood, and then complaining that you can't paint your house purple. You knew the rules ahead of time.

Would I go out and buy a 400,000 house (A crap load of CD’s) instead? No in the case of the realestate market I have choices.

You've got choices here as well. There are other digital music services (although their DRM is generally even more restrictive). There are artists who release their music for free, without DRM. And there are CDs, which the vast majority of the planet seems to find acceptable.

The RIAA has seen fite to give us NO choices.

Nonsense -- see above. You may not like the choices, but that's the market.

Either pay through the nose with CD’s or get F-ed with DRM. Thanks but I’ll take door number 3.

So, to be clear, for you it's about saving money (not having to "pay through the nose with CD's"). That's not much of a moral defense. If you don't want to pay for CDs, and don't agree to the terms of DRM, don't buy music. It's not a natural right, you know.

[coolsoldier]

I'm getting tired of seeing people here talk like breaking any law is unconditionally immoral. Beyond the fact that there is no victim unless you actually pirate the music (which now that PlayFair leaves your Apple ID in the tags is unlikely), when a law/agreement is unfair/illegal, VIOLATING IT IS THE ONLY WAY OF BRINGING THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

You cannot simply take Apple to court on the grounds that they have an unfair or illegal EULA. Similarly with the DMCA, you cannot simply take the government to court on the grounds that the DMCA is unconstitutional. The established method of reviewing laws, whether statutory or contractual, is having them reviewed by a court, and the only way to do that is by breaking the law in question.

[123]

That's not much of a moral defense.

Defense for what? What's the moral wrong doing here?

You really are starting to annoy me. Depending on how you want to look at this, it's either a legal or a moral issue, but breach of contract all by itself is certainly no moral matter. Otherwise, one wouldn't have to make a difference between technical lawfulness and (universal) ethics of one's actions at all. So, either stop talking about morality or come up with arguments that are about what's "right" and "wrong" and not what's the (current US) law.

[Spades]

Is it really legal to burn to a CD and re-rip? Just because it's easy and there's no possible way for Apple to stop it doesn't mean it's not a violation of the terms of service either.

You shall be entitled to export, burn or copy Products solely for personal, noncommercial use.

Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners in any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition, or artwork embodied in any Product.


You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules

Re-ripping from the CD is circumvention too, isn't it? I don't see any exceptions that allow you to remove the DRM by any method, except for burning of that CD. As the terms say, that is merely a concession to us, and apparently is not a waiver of their rights, which, perhaps, includes the anti-circumvention clause. In other words, the second quoted clause could be saying that even if burning the CD removes the DRM, that does not mean you can go ahead and use the DRM-less version anywhere but the CD.

Also, the first quoted clause and the third seem to be in conflict. What does "export" mean? Does that mean we can use Quicktime to export unprotected files? If so, that's simultaneously an allowed action according to the first clause and a denied action by the third clause. I don't see any clear specification of the order of precedence of these clauses, except that the second quoted clause may be indicating the third clause takes precedence.

That's only if exporting via Quicktime is allowed anyways. You can't export in any way from iTunes. So, what programs apply to these actions and what ones don't? Toast did work. Was it intended to work? And if so, what's the difference between Toast and another third-party application like PlayFair/hymn? Are we able to export and remove the DRM for personal, non-commercial use, or are we not?


Other interesting parts:
Removal of Apple Content or Other Materials. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Apple and its licensors reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the Service at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for the removal of or disabling of access to any such Products, content or materials under this Agreement. Apple may also impose limits on the use of or access to certain features or portions of the Service, in any case and without notice or liability.

The fears of people worried about suddenly losing access to their music are perfectly justified.

Electronic Signatures and Contracts. Your use of the Service includes the ability to enter into agreements and/or to make purchases electronically. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSIONS CONSTITUTE YOUR AGREEMENT AND INTENT TO BE BOUND BY AND TO PAY FOR SUCH AGREEMENTS AND PURCHASES. YOUR AGREEMENT AND INTENT TO BE BOUND BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSIONS APPLIES TO ALL RECORDS RELATING TO ALL TRANSACTIONS YOU ENTER INTO ON THIS SITE, INCLUDING NOTICES OF CANCELLATION, POLICIES, CONTRACTS, AND APPLICATIONS.


I can't say whether this is legally true, but from my knowledge of computer security I'd say this definitely is not a strong authentication method. I'd say that submission of a purchase does not provide enough authentication information to serve as a valid signature for a contract. I've seen somebody say that payment serves as agreement, which it might be. Apple is claiming the "signature" is a different action though.

There's what I think anyways. Since many people are saying "You agreed to it. You should abide by it," I thought I would take a closer look at the terms and start a little discussion about them. The terms don't seem to allow the alternative people keep suggesting. Some of the clauses seem ambiguous and possibly conflicting with other clauses, and a lot of it leaves me confused as to what we can do and what we can't. It also doesn't look like much of a contract to begin with.

Is there a contract lawyer in the house? :confused:

[bensisko]

Hey Amed and others who are supporting this crap, I hope you enjoy doing this while you can, because at this rate the RIAA and music companies are going to pull the plug on Apple's muisc store and ruin it for the rest of us who don't mind following Apple's rules.

yes, in a perfect world I could listen to my music anywhere and everywhere and anyhow I wanted to, but unfortunitly this is not a perfect world, and we need to have laws to protect against piracy. If it's too "inconvient" then go get your music somewhere else.

Apple is the good guy here, trying to break down the impossibly ridgid pricing structure that the music industry has set up. Apple is TRYING to bring the music industry down into a better playing field. If iTunes seems restricting it's because of Napster, Kazza and the free music heyday of the latter years of the 20th century. Had Apple not come along with iTMS, we would all be stuck buying CDs.

I would support Apple in taking drastic RIAA style measures against this program (i.e. anybody who downloads it gets sued). There is an agreement that you make with Apple when you purchase a song, and if you break that agreement (i.e. thorugh the use of this program) you should loose your rights to the song.

If the iTMS was the ONLY way to get music, then my attitude MIGHT be different (although I do view their policy as EXTREMELY fair). Thankfully, the iTMS isn't the only place to get music (even digital music!). Is Apple being unfair as to not letting you play your iTMS music on your Dell DJ? No! Why? Because you are NOT being forced to purchase music from iTMS and you are not being forced to buy an iPod.

Anybody who doesn't get this, just ask Microsoft how they would feel about you getting a program that strips out authentication/registration parts of Word. You bought Word so you should be able to do with it what you want, right? No. In both instances (iTMS and Word) you bought permission to use the software in a certin manner. You did not buy the program, you just bought permission to use it. People can't fool themselves into thinking that just because they put down money for something they can do whatever they wanted with it, especially software (yes, digital music IS software). Are Amed and the others now going to go out and start hacking away at a Sprint Cell phone just so they can use the same phone on the Verizon network? Why not? That too is illegal and akin to what they are doing here.

In conclusion, I hope Apple takes serious legal action and puts the clamps on this ASAP (at very least, suspend the right of those that use the program to buy music from iTMS).

[Gus]

I'm getting tired of seeing people here talk like breaking any law is unconditionally immoral. Beyond the fact that there is no victim unless you actually pirate the music (which now that PlayFair leaves your Apple ID in the tags is unlikely), when a law/agreement is unfair/illegal, VIOLATING IT IS THE ONLY WAY OF BRINGING THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

You cannot simply take Apple to court on the grounds that they have an unfair or illegal EULA. Similarly with the DMCA, you cannot simply take the government to court on the grounds that the DMCA is unconstitutional. The established method of reviewing laws, whether statutory or contractual, is having them reviewed by a court, and the only way to do that is by breaking the law in question.


No, no, no. That is not the way to contest a law. There is a system in place for bringing a law up for review, and it does not involve the breaking of said law. Using your system of review, if I believed that the laws prohibiting murder violated my rights, then it would okay for me to go kill someone because I demand that it be brought in from of the court system, or whatever system you choose to be reviewed for legality because I don't believe that particular law is fair or right.

Breaking the law does not change the law, and it does not provide you with a forum in which to dispute that law. Yes, this has happened several times in the last few years, but it is not supposed to be that way. In the instance you describe, the law should not be put into question, but your criminal activity. If you want to change a law, particulalry a federal law, you need to get a group of people to support you in Congress with a bill or a review. Or, you need to demonstrate without breaking the law that said law violates some civil liberty or that it conflicts with an already legal right or privelege guaranteed to you by existing laws or the Constitution.

Breaking the law to get a topic noticed is indeed the trend, but it is not the way to do things as our system was originally intended to run. You do have opportunnities to contest laws, but that is not the way to do it. Whether or not you think you are right does change the fact that you are now in violation of a law, or in plain english, a criminal.

I am of course once again, really talking about pirating music, but if Apple decided to pursue litigation against users of Hymn, they would have the legal course, because you violated a EULA that you agreed to, not them.

You're right though, you can't take Apple to court because they have an "unfair" EULA. Who are you to decide what's "fair" or "unfair"? you entered a legal agreement if you downloaded the songs, so you must have thought it was "fair" when you got the songs, right?

I knew I'd get sucked back into this. ;)

Regards,
Gus

[MacBoyX]

Here's a limitation:
Occasionally, although I don't own a car- I drive places!! I have to rent a car with a (gasp) cd player and no other hook in-no cassette, no aux in- and I'm not buying an iTrip coz I researched/heard they suck. So what am I left with- making a playlist and then burning that to multiple cds. Now with summer coming up, I'm going to be renting cars to get the hell out of NYC on the weekends, so what if I want to make a bunch of mixes? I have to keep track of how many times I have put that song on a mix so I don't go over the limit. Not to mention I have been downloading from iTMS since day 1- I sure as hell don't know how many mixes I've made for myself or others-(we have all been doing this since we were pre-teens-making mixes for friends etc. so don't give me anything about well there you go that's illegal. Pls. spare me that bs) That's where it sucks. I have burned and re-imported my iTMS songs as mp3's for archiving-just in case I go over- It's SO time consuming and wasteful. I don't want to strip the DRM so I can go and throw them up to a p2p or anything like that, but I would like to listen to music that I purchase as many times and ways as I want. Alas, until there is more feedback on hymn, I will keep burning and re-importing.

You can't burn the same play list into a CD more than 7 times without changing the order of the songs. You can use the song in as many different mixes and playlists as you wish, you just can't burn 8 CDs of that exact play list.

[cmoney]

Breaking the law to get a topic noticed is indeed the trend, but it is not the way to do things as our system was originally intended to run. You do have opportunnities to contest laws, but that is not the way to do it. Whether or not you think you are right does change the fact that you are now in violation of a law, or in plain english, a criminal.


Without getting too political, civil disobedience is very much a part of US history and sometimes very good at effecting change.

As for me being a criminal, yes I accept that. Every single person who drives 5 miles an hour over the speed limit, every person who jaywalks in NYC or LA, every person who puts an ice cream cone in their pocket in Kentucky is a criminal as well.

[cmoney]

Are Amed and the others now going to go out and start hacking away at a Sprint Cell phone just so they can use the same phone on the Verizon network? Why not? That too is illegal and akin to what they are doing here.

Why exactly is that illegal? Say I bought the phone fair and square (no subsidy) and want to use it on Verizon. Is that illegal? I haven't purchased a license to use the phone, I purchased the phone. Anyway, if Verizon claims it's illegal, I'm so happy I use GSM since that kind of stuff is almost promoted on GSM. Hell, Cingular doesn't require a contract if you use your own phone and T-Mobile hands out the unlock code if you ask!

[Gus]

Without getting too political, civil disobedience is very much a part of US history and sometimes very good at effecting change.

As for me being a criminal, yes I accept that. Every single person who drives 5 miles an hour over the speed limit, every person who jaywalks in NYC or LA, every person who puts an ice cream cone in their pocket in Kentucky is a criminal as well.

Yes, as anal as it sounds, they are breaking laws. All of your examples. As far as civil disobedience goes, yes, if all other avenues have been expored and exhausted, and the only recourse is civil disobedience, then yes, it is good at affecting change. But you and I both know that is not what's going on here. Rosa Parks broke the law, but it was a law that violated her Constitutional rights, and a law that, because of those in charge of "the system' had gone unchanged for too long. It was not a law in which Rosa and someone else entered into a legal agreement over and she was sitting in the front of the bus because she didn't like the deal after she agreed to it.

Anyway, I generaly agree with you. There are a lot of reasons for laws, but generally they are created for the greater good. They are supposed to make life safer and more stable for us. In this case, being allowed to break a contract because one party decided they don't like what they agreed to after the fact would set a horrible precedent. especially in this digital age.

Regards,
Gus

[ZildjianKX]

Just a heads up, if anyone is having problems using the software and has an iSight, unplug it :)

[Azmordean]

No, no, no. That is not the way to contest a law. There is a system in place for bringing a law up for review, and it does not involve the breaking of said law. Using your system of review, if I believed that the laws prohibiting murder violated my rights, then it would okay for me to go kill someone because I demand that it be brought in from of the court system, or whatever system you choose to be reviewed for legality because I don't believe that particular law is fair or right.

Breaking the law does not change the law, and it does not provide you with a forum in which to dispute that law. Yes, this has happened several times in the last few years, but it is not supposed to be that way. In the instance you describe, the law should not be put into question, but your criminal activity. If you want to change a law, particulalry a federal law, you need to get a group of people to support you in Congress with a bill or a review. Or, you need to demonstrate without breaking the law that said law violates some civil liberty or that it conflicts with an already legal right or privelege guaranteed to you by existing laws or the Constitution.

Breaking the law to get a topic noticed is indeed the trend, but it is not the way to do things as our system was originally intended to run. You do have opportunnities to contest laws, but that is not the way to do it. Whether or not you think you are right does change the fact that you are now in violation of a law, or in plain english, a criminal.

I am of course once again, really talking about pirating music, but if Apple decided to pursue litigation against users of Hymn, they would have the legal course, because you violated a EULA that you agreed to, not them.

You're right though, you can't take Apple to court because they have an "unfair" EULA. Who are you to decide what's "fair" or "unfair"? you entered a legal agreement if you downloaded the songs, so you must have thought it was "fair" when you got the songs, right?

I knew I'd get sucked back into this. ;)

Regards,
Gus

You are incorrect, partially at least. You are right that using the political process (legislature) is the classic means of changing a law, and generally, the best means. However, the Courts are another place to pursue such change. There is a doctrine called standing which requires someone to have ACTUAL INJURY in order to sue - the fact that "I may get sued by Apple some time in the future" or "The government may prosecute me under the DMCA in the future" is usually not enough for a court to hear the case.

To show ACTUAL INJURY, a party will usually have to have ACTUALLY been sued by Apple, or ACTUALLY prosecuted by the government, or at least show an active investigation. As the suit or prosecution goes forward, the now defendant could then allege, as a defense, that the DMCA is unconstitutional.

Basically, the line of argument goes "I was not violating the law by violating X (here, DMCA), because X is ILLEGAL." So, the defendant is contending that no, she was not violating any law, nor any agreement, because said law and agreement were not in fact valid.

Generally these cases go up exactly as mentioned here. The defendant, believing herself in the right, violates the "law" (here, stripping DRM). Eventually the government prosecutes. She say "uh, the law they are prosecuting under is illegal." If she prevails, then the law gets stuck down in full or in part, and she is free to go and continue her activity.

Thus, in conclusion, in order for a colorable claim that a law is unconstitutional to be brought up in court, usually the defendant must, in actuality, "violate" the existing law.

Whether or not this is proper was a hot debate among such thinkers as Madisson and Jefferson, and remains discussed by legal scholars today - but it was settled in Marbury v. Madison that the judiciary does indeed have the power to review statutes and strike them down as unconstitutional. The result of this is that violating the law is a valid (albeit RISKY) method of changing the law.

PS: Yes, I am a law student.

[Doctor Q]

Is it really legal to burn to a CD and re-rip? Just because it's easy and there's no possible way for Apple to stop it doesn't mean it's not a violation of the terms of service either.Your post was excellent, Spades!

If you rip a CD back to a set of unprotected iTunes songs and continue to use them in iTunes, you have removed DRM but I'm not convinced that you violated this EULA clause:

You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules
You didn't "modify the technology" by tampering with the application software and you didn't tamper with the tunes themselves, which as you point out can be considered software too, since you are performing clearly supported and documented procedures that are features of iTunes.

Which leads us to the word "circumvent", which can mean "to bypass by artful maneuvering" or simply "to bypass". Artful maneuvering sounds like it involves intent, so ripping wouldn't be an automatic violation. Bypass? That's a tough call. You might have lost your original tunes in a disk crash and you are restoring them from a CD you burned. Losing the DRM is a side-effect of this process, and you can't avoid it, so it's not clear to me that this could be called bypassing.

I'm not addressing all the other arguments about the justification for removing DRM. But I am speculating on possible interpretations of the license agreement.

[ALoLA]

I think it all boils down to the spirit of the law. If it's for personal use only, then I see no problem in stripping the DRM. However, the RIAA insisted on having this DRM insurance policy, before allowing Apple to offer the music on iTMS. Primarily because there are obviously many people out there determined to share copyrighted material with others. The pirates are the ones that brought this DRM curse upon the rest of us. The RIAA may be evil for their greed, etc., but I can't blame them for wanting to protect the intellectual property of their artists.

[bensisko]

Why exactly is that illegal? Say I bought the phone fair and square (no subsidy) and want to use it on Verizon. Is that illegal? I haven't purchased a license to use the phone, I purchased the phone. Anyway, if Verizon claims it's illegal, I'm so happy I use GSM since that kind of stuff is almost promoted on GSM. Hell, Cingular doesn't require a contract if you use your own phone and T-Mobile hands out the unlock code if you ask!

It's illegal because it's reverse engineering the phone and when you sign a contract and you get the phone cheap (the reason you can get the phone for as cheap as you can is because of the contract, the phone itself costs much more), you are agreeing not to take your phone apart for any reason. Using a phone on a differnt network requires more than just an 'unlock code.'

With GSM phones it's a little different. You are still not supposed to take your phone apart and try to reverse engineer it, but you can easily switch services because it's a feature of the phone (while CDMA and TDMA phones did not have that feature). Although it would be the same effect if you tried to reverse engineer the ID card that you got from Verizon to work with Cingular (instead of replaceing it with the cingular version).

Bottom line, although you bought the phone, there are still restrictions on what you can do with it. Goto any cellular store and ask them what kind of modications you can make to your phone. All the answers will be cosmetic. People have gone to jail for reverse engineering cell phones.

Bottom line, you don't have full rights over everything you buy.

[bensisko]

As for me being a criminal, yes I accept that. Every single person who drives 5 miles an hour over the speed limit, every person who jaywalks in NYC or LA, every person who puts an ice cream cone in their pocket in Kentucky is a criminal as well.

This is NOT the same as driving 5 miles over or your other examples. This is more akin to breech of contract (a much more serious offense).

[Jefe]

Forget whether it is legal or ethical for a moment and just ponder how stupid the name is. HYMN? Hear Your Music aNywhere.

Why were they so set on hymn that they had to make such a stretch? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Gus]

Whether or not this is proper was a hot debate among such thinkers as Madisson and Jefferson, and remains discussed by legal scholars today - but it was settled in Marbury v. Madison that the judiciary does indeed have the power to review statutes and strike them down as unconstitutional. The result of this is that violating the law is a valid (albeit RISKY) method of changing the law.

PS: Yes, I am a law student.

jahutch,

I very much appreciate your reply and the basis of your argument. While I would not argue that Marbury v. Madison established the judiciary as the interpreter of laws, and the Supreme Court the pinnacle of this judicial review, I cannot believe that Marshall ever intended for the laws to be purposefully broken in order for them to come under review. I have to believe that the basis for his opinion was that the judiciary was there to protect citizens from laws that are created that remove rights that already exist or will come in direct conflict with the Constitution, in which case the Supreme Court would have to make a decision as to the whether the new law stands or the provisions under the Constitution would stand. I understand that this also applies in other scenarios, but again, I turn to other examples such as murder, violation of civil rights and others that, if these occured, they would not be given the same treatment in a court of law based on the belief that theior prohibition violates the rights of the offender. I know these examples are more extreme than a breach of contract dispute or piracy, but I believe the fundamental principle behind them is the same. The juduciary exists to review law, not to create it. While it does have the power, and the sole branch with this power, to strike down a law, it also does not have the power to put into practice any law or to change the Constitution.

Now, as to the issue of standing, while what you said is true that it would be difficult to assert a claim without actual injury, however, if it can be demonstrated that an actual injury will occur within a specified time frame and with specified damages, then the case may be heard and standing is not an issue. But even violation of the law in order to bring about the review of the case would not be wise in this particular instance because of three things:
1) The plaintiff would already be in breach of contract with Apple
2) I believe it would be very difficult to demonstrate any real damage or violation of right.
3) If any real damage or violation had occured, it wold be against the holders of the copyrights to the songs, in this case the artists or in some cases the labels. This has been established by both copyright law and recent decisions by state and federal courts.

In fact, I believe the court would merely dismiss or just pass over the case, and the violator would be prosecuted.

I'm sure everyone else would have a different take on the subject, but this is just how I feel about it.

Regards,
Gus

[xDANx]

I can't help but think if you don't like the packaging (ie the DRM), then don't buy the product. There are plenty of alternatives.

the alternatives are slowly drying up...and the RIAA is very obviously intent on adding DRM to everything...including CDs. ignoring the issue because CDs are still relatively free of DRM is not a solution.


It's up to the consumer to make something popular if it's a good product, or shop elsewhere to give competition if 'Fairplay' doesn't give you what you want.

remind me again of all the other online music stores that i can use with my mac...and anyway, to use the word 'competition' with respect to the music industry is somewhat laughable. oligopolies are not competitive systems.

[eric_n_dfw]

Forget whether it is legal or ethical for a moment and just ponder how stupid the name is. HYMN? Hear Your Music aNywhere.

Why were they so set on hymn that they had to make such a stretch? :confused: :confused: :confused:I've worked on projects with much worse acronyms. Suffice to say, we developers are weird. :p

[dcentity2000]

So the EU has explicit laws about the iTMS already, before it's even released in Europe. How interesting, tell me more.

EU has case law which applies to services similar to ITMS. Many may be binding.



Rich::

[dcentity2000]

You make business on our soil, you follow our law, even if the US may think otherwise. That aside, I still would like to see a legal precedent on that matter. It still remains to be investigated if the terms in the iTMS Agreement are acceptable under german/EU law, which, neither you nor I know since we lack a precedent. I have a pretty good feeling that alone the way they set up their right to change the rules of the contract at any given time including previously purchased items is not legal neither under german nor EU law.
Regards,

Ahmed

Actually, I study law so yes, I have a pretty good idea. The transaction is pretty much all american at the moment and if servers are located in America, belonging to an American corporation, with the intellectual property (important bit) belonging to an American corporation, then we will be subject to US jurisdiction.

[cmoney]

It's illegal because it's reverse engineering the phone and when you sign a contract and you get the phone cheap (the reason you can get the phone for as cheap as you can is because of the contract, the phone itself costs much more), you are agreeing not to take your phone apart for any reason. Using a phone on a differnt network requires more than just an 'unlock code.'

With GSM phones it's a little different. You are still not supposed to take your phone apart and try to reverse engineer it, but you can easily switch services because it's a feature of the phone (while CDMA and TDMA phones did not have that feature). Although it would be the same effect if you tried to reverse engineer the ID card that you got from Verizon to work with Cingular (instead of replaceing it with the cingular version).

Bottom line, although you bought the phone, there are still restrictions on what you can do with it. Goto any cellular store and ask them what kind of modications you can make to your phone. All the answers will be cosmetic. People have gone to jail for reverse engineering cell phones.

Bottom line, you don't have full rights over everything you buy.

Reverse Engineering is presumptively legal.

Bunner attorney Allon Levy of Hopkins & Carley in San Jose, California, said the decision establishes important protections for software programmers who use legal methods to learn about proprietary products. According to Levy, programmers had gleaned information used to create DeCSS using widely accepted software engineering techniques known as reverse engineering. Had the DVD CCA prevailed in the case, he said, programmers would have faced new uncertainties over trade-secret claims asserted against legitimately created products.

"The court found that reverse engineering is presumptively legal, something the plaintiff had fought tooth and nail against," he said.


You also ignored the fact that I said "without subsidy" which would mean paying for the phone without any Sprint PCS subsidy (ie, paying full price for the phone, probably $300-$500). People have gone to jail for reverse engineering phones to clone the phone or to somehow steal service.

As far as Sprint's contract, the only portion that could be relevant says that the phone will not work on other carrier's networks except when roaming. That does not mean you're not allowed to try, you're not allowed to use it on another network, it's simply a statement of fact that the phone you are purchasing will not work on other networks. The fact that the phone can roam on other networks also means that the phone is technically capable of working on other networks.

If I pay full price for a phone I expect to own it outright. If I buy a subsidized phone, I'd agree, that phone is subject to restrictions because you haven't bought it "completely."

[applebum]

I bet you would have said the same for songs bought with only allowances for three computers.

I have six computers, so even the 4.5 DRM does not meet my needs.(Powerbook(G4), iBook(G3), iMac(15"), PC(webserver), PC(database development, etc.), PC(file server). With the addition of my sister's eventual laptop our network will grow to seven.

I hear this argument a lot, but it is not really valid. If you simply compare a CD to the same ITMS album, you actually have more freedom with the iTunes album. You can put that album on 5 computers and play them simultaneously if you desire. With a CD, the medium itself is limiting. You can only play it on one computer at a time. (I am not talking about importing the music from the cd onto your computer, just the CD itself). If you want to do more with the music than the medium allows, then there are ways around that both for CD's and ITMS music. The only real difference is in the quality of the medium.

As for the seven cd burns. If I wanted a CD I would have bought a CD. I bought songs off the iTMS soley because I had no plan of playing it in a CD player. This burning it and ripping it is like telling me I have to listen to a cassette tape because the CD isn't allowed to play because it has been authorized to three other CD players somewhere.

All I want is music as if I ripped it myself from the CD. The iTMS isn't saving anyone money really. You get no jewel case, no album insert, and no CD. I get nothing but 1's and 0's, and they think they should have the ability to tell me how to use my 1's and 0's. Whereas with CDs you have carte blanche and a physical item.

So, you want all the benefits of a CD, but don't want to buy the CD. So you buy from ITMS, fully aware of its limitations and the DRM that comes along with it, and then complain because it is not the CD????

DRM is an attack on civil liberties.

When did listening to digital music become a civil liberty? You mention putting your sister's computer on your network. This is a prime example of why there is DRM. In the past, if your sister liked a CD that you had, she would go buy her own (eventually you would get tired of trying to share that CD). With the digital age, you want to put your sister on the network and simply share that music with her. And you could share her music. That way you would never have to buy any duplicates of music. Great for you, but not for anyone involved in the making of that music. They are now making less money because you are sharing that music with 5 computers. Eventually there will have to be a new model for making money from music. Until that happens we are stuck with DRM. And there is no loss of civil liberties while there are still a ton of other options out there.

[Doctor Q]

Forget whether it is legal or ethical for a moment and just ponder how stupid the name is. HYMN? Hear Your Music aNywhere.

Why were they so set on hymn that they had to make such a stretch? :confused: :confused: :confused:What would you prefer? How 'bout HEaR Music ANywhere?

[TRiPod]

:confused:

Uhm...directly from Apple's website....

"Best of all, you can use any song you purchase to accompany an iPhoto slide show, play behind a motion menu in iDVD or set the proper mood in your newest iMovie project."
Ummm directly from my programs...

"This computer is not authorized to play this music." (From a quicktime file)

then in iMovie, try dragging an m4p file in there.

While these are limitations that need to be addressed, it's no reason to run out and grab this piece of crap software that will be shut down anyway. If you're gonna use Hymn, just use Poisoned. Your wasting your money by pretending to be legal and use iTMS but stripping the DRM.

[greg75]

When did listening to digital music become a civil liberty?
Learning to Love Big Brother (http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/165)

Naive people who think Apple is not a corporation, Steve Jobs is Santa Claus and Bill Gates is teh Devil need not reply.

[greg75]

it's no reason to run out and grab this piece of crap software that will be shut down anyway.
Their new hosting provider (http://www.ctyme.com/hosting/index.htm) has stated they will not take the software down, but go to court instead. Then there's DeDRMS which Apple has not taken any action against, because they know they'll lose.
If you're gonna use Hymn, just use Poisoned. Your wasting your money by pretending to be legal and use iTMS but stripping the DRM.
The only reason to use iTMS is because it's legal? Oh, well, I guess you're right, since iTMS screws the artists too.

[xijukid]

If programs such as this do not stop think what the future will hold...

All of the record exec's driving the Mercades that most people are complaining about will continue to drive their Mercades, but in order to do so the price of CDs will rise and programs such as the ITMS will have to shut down because the record companies will no longer trust online music sales.

On the other hand, think of how cool music downloading could be if people would stop stealing music. Perhaps the price would go down because the record companies would be making more money.

Everything has a cause and an effect. It seems to me that most people are not thinking long term when they choose to download programs that infringe upon copyright laws. As an artist myself, I'm glad that art is protected and it's a shame that people think they own pieces of art. You can look at a piece of visual art in a book for hours, but you can't do whatever you choose with it unless you own it. Music is the same...do you own any bands?

[coolsoldier]

If programs such as this do not stop think what the future will hold...

All of the record exec's driving the Mercades that most people are complaining about will continue to drive their Mercades, but in order to do so the price of CDs will rise and programs such as the ITMS will have to shut down because the record companies will no longer trust online music sales.

Except... nobody loses money (or even makes less money) when programs like this are used.

[greg75]

On the other hand, think of how cool music downloading could be if people would stop stealing music. Perhaps the price would go down because the record companies would be making more money.
Which planet are you on? It can't be Earth.

[ethernet76]

Good Lord -- you are actually going to equate copyright law and slavery? I don't even have a snarky comeback for that...I'm just too dumbfounded...

You said, "it's the law." I'm proving the law isn't always fair. Maybe you had hoped I'd use more friendly examples of the law trampling on an individuals rights.

However, it is fair to compare the DMCA towards any of those issues as it had its advocates and its detractors. While where not talking about trading people for money or how much a black person should count for in the census, you have to look at the context of the arguement.

There are those who honestly believed in the 18th century a black person shouldn't be considered a person. Just as there are those today that agree the RIAA shouldn't have to go through a subpeona. Congress deemed that an "officer of the court" – anyone from a court clerk to a judge – were allowed to hand out mandatory information-requests to ISPs.

The DMCA unfairly moved power from judges to anyone. It would be the equivalent of allowing a intern vote in place of your senator.

We can see the DMCA slowly get chopped away. As has been happening with Verizon and others refusing.

[whooleytoo]

What would you prefer? How 'bout HEaR Music ANywhere?

How about HEar Music Of Random otheRs, witHOut Investing DollarS. HEMORRHOIDS!

(Known to non-English speakers as PILES - Pleeeeze, I Listen Everyone's tuneS??)

[frank5050]

So back to the Roku Soundbridge thing. Let's say I had hypothetically spent $500, $1000 on iTMS songs, then sometime later decided I wanted a Soundbridge. My m4ps are unplayable on a Soundbridge. However, I can burn all those songs to CD and re-rip them, and not make anyone unhappy. Of course, this would be a big hassle, waste a lot of CD-Rs (which I would probably just throw away) and mean some loss of quality (which I may or may not be able to notice).

Or, I could re-purchase all those CDs, rip them, and have equal-quality m4as without making anyone unhappy. The drawbacks here are obvious, though.

I'm not a screw-the-industry kind of guy. I'm also not too sure I'd feel "entitled" to the music I had already bought. But, given the burdens brought on by options A and B, I'm sorry, I'd go for option C and strip out the DRM. Some of you will argue "you should have thought of this when you made the agreement with Apple, even if you didn't expect to buy a SoundBridge" and I'd listen to that, it's a rational argument. But seriously, in the end I would still go with option C and not feel much of an ethical problem with it.

Now, I'm a big Apple fan, and as for the whole Apple music monopoly thing, so far that doesn't seem like too bad a thing but then apple needs to complete the puzzle. Bring on the Apple set-top box, and a bunch of us on this thread would have nothing to bitch about.

Until then ... long live Option C.

While trying not to go off on too many tangents at once ......

1) A number of people have mentioned the Roku Soundbridge, does anyone actually have one of these devices? (pre-order stage still?) I have the same problem being discussed but it's with a product from Slim Devices (SliMP3). Since Roku will use the same server software I assume the problems will be the same though.

2) To solve the problem of making my iTMS purchased music easily playable on my home stereo through a SliMP3 I don't make CD's and re-rip but instead simply use the Lame encoder at --alt-preset-extreme setting to rip to MP3 and strip out the DRM (for use only through my SliMP3). No CD-R or -RW's to deal with. Problems with this include: loss of quality, time to re-encode, larger file sizes, managing 2 sets of the same songs, violation of iTMS EULA, etc. but it's what I do nonetheless.

If Apple or the RIAA are going to go through the process of tracking me down and prosecuting me that's a chance I'll have to take but as long as I don't make these songs avaiable for others to download (and I don't) I'm not too worried.

(does anyone know if this Lame encoder method is now broken with iTunes 4.5?)

3) Although Hymn/Playfair might make this process easier for me to accomplish I do lament the fact that it's past and recent availability might eventually change the tems of Apple's current Fairplay scheme to be more restrictive. I'm already disappointed that the iTMS now no longer works for me since the v4.5 release as I've never upgraded from iTunes v4.0 (what can I say, I hate to upgrade unless it's to solve a serious problem or because there's a new feature I can't live without).

Thus I understand both sides of the argument, I just wish Apple would make it possible for Slim Devices, Roku, Tivo, & others to be able to play iTMS songs over network audio devices or, as dloomer suggested, come out with their own set top box.

frank

[pooky]

<I>... simply use the Lame encoder at --alt-preset-extreme setting to rip to MP3 and strip out the DRM...

(does anyone know if this Lame encoder method is now broken with iTunes 4.5?)

I used to do this as well, but I can attest to it being broken under 4.5. I would assume that the new "features" designed to prevent programs like Toast from using the files also prevent the LAME encoder from doing its thing.

[xijukid]

Which planet are you on? It can't be Earth.

Costs of goods rise when the cost to maintain the company rise. If a company does well the costs of goods 'usually' stay the same or slighlty move upward. I take back my comment that the ITMS prices would drop...

[ethernet76]

I hear this argument a lot, but it is not really valid. If you simply compare a CD to the same ITMS album, you actually have more freedom with the iTunes album. You can put that album on 5 computers and play them simultaneously if you desire. With a CD, the medium itself is limiting. You can only play it on one computer at a time. (I am not talking about importing the music from the cd onto your computer, just the CD itself). If you want to do more with the music than the medium allows, then there are ways around that both for CD's and ITMS music. The only real difference is in the quality of the medium.

You also have to compare the portability of the medium. CDs I can take anywhere. Do anything with. I'm not concerned with letting aanyone hear my music. I just want to be able to take it around like my vinyl or CD.

So, you want all the benefits of a CD, but don't want to buy the CD. So you buy from ITMS, fully aware of its limitations and the DRM that comes along with it, and then complain because it is not the CD????

Why are you implying digital music is a second-class format? All formats are created equal. I am not buying a format. I am buying notes, chords, vocals, and mixing.

When did listening to digital music become a civil liberty? You mention putting your sister's computer on your network. This is a prime example of why there is DRM. In the past, if your sister liked a CD that you had, she would go buy her own (eventually you would get tired of trying to share that CD). With the digital age, you want to put your sister on the network and simply share that music with her. And you could share her music. That way you would never have to buy any duplicates of music. Great for you, but not for anyone involved in the making of that music. They are now making less money because you are sharing that music with 5 computers. Eventually there will have to be a new model for making money from music. Until that happens we are stuck with DRM. And there is no loss of civil liberties while there are still a ton of other options out there.

My collection is passworded both here and when I'm at school. Only a few people have the password, people I would normally lend my music to. I am not freely sharing, copying, or distributing my music. I have broken no copyright laws. However, I am a criminal.

A House of Representatives sub-committee is now considering legislation that would grant users more rights, and "would protect consumers from being prosecuted under anti-circumvention regulations in instances where no copyright law has been broken," according to a PCWorld.com article. The legislation would also require clear labeling of copy-protected CDs to be clearly labeled. Fair measures that any home user can respect.

Opponents argue that one copy could turn into 100s of illegal copies and there is no way to control the number of copies made. This the same arguement made against VHS recorders in 1984. The same arguement made against CD burners.

Pirates are pirates, they will always find a way around restrictions and encryption. I am not a pirate. Please let me listen to my Hendrix.