Apple vs. Anti-DRM

[halen]

Crappy

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

 

[iMan]

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

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

 

[iMan]

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

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

 

[Spades]

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

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

And the pro apps don't work?

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

 

[ifjake]

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

 

[krasi82]

iTunes 4.5 copy protection broke already.

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

 

[form]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[travishill]

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

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

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

 

[MictXP]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BlueDjinn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ethernet76]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dontmatter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zync]

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

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

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

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

 

[autrefois]

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

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

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

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

Techinically it's wrong for me to let anyone else hear it if you want to go that far with it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And since we're on the topic of licensing, since I don't own the music itself, why can't I get a new CD at cost when I accidently scratch one?

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

 

[greg75]

Fair Use sucks. Go Apple!!

 

[kindall]

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

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

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

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

 

[Blue Moon]

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

 

[SLAPSHOTW]

New gettunes

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

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

 

[knockknock]

Not that fair

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

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

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

 

[Spades]

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

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

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

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

 

[RogerQ]

Doing the math...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ethernet76]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ethernet76]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zync]

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



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


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



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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SLAPSHOTW]

To zync and others...

To zync (and others),

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

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

-Matt