Apple vs. Anti-DRM

[greenstork]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Freak-a-leak]

I gotta chime in...

This debate is ludicrous. Completely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ethernet76]

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

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

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

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

 

[zync]

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

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

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

 

[zync]

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

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

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

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

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

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

sibelius

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

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

 

[sjk]

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

Which headphone amp do you use with your HD 580's?

 

[zync]

Hahahaaahahaahahaaaaaa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sibelius

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zync]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zync]

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

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

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

sibelius

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And thanks to Freek-a-Leak!

 

[iMan]

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

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

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

 

[Multimedia]

How Do You Convert Protected AAC Files To AIFF Files?

How Do You Convert Protected AAC Files To AIFF Files?

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

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

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

Does Toast circumvent Apple's protection scheme?

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

 

[Thor74]

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

 

[arogge]

Thor74:

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

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

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

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

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

Like paying premium prices for iPods from Elbonia?

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

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

 

[zync]

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

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

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

 

[davetrow1997]

It's easy to find this if you just GOOGLE for it...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

 

[JGowan]

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

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

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

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

 

[dontmatter]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[iMan]

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

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

 

[zync]

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

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

 

[sibelius]

ahhhh... the final chapter of our 'book'.

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

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

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

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

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

sibelius

 

[iMan]

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

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

 

[zync]

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

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

It seems we have an accord.

 

[Les McQueen]

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

 

[zync]

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

In one word: quality.

 

[iggyb]

This debate is ludicrous. Completely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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