DVD Jon hacks iTunes, creates program that allows you to buy...

stevez

macrumors newbie
Mar 22, 2005
1
0
pay for mp3s?

Who buys mp3s anyways? especially through apple. They make crap software and crap hardware. Why not buy something you can customize and dump that teal piece of trash out of a window.
 

the Rebel

macrumors member
Feb 24, 2005
37
8
dragonsbane said:
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.

But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.

Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else.
the Rebel said:
So if my morality tells me that it is right for me to kill you, then you support my choice to do so?
dragonsbane said:
First you say that breaking the law is wrong. That is why we should not use this app to download songs from the iTMS.
Breaking the DRM is wrong regardless of whether or not it is against the law. The fact that it is also against the law only compounds the wrongness.

dragonsbane said:
Then someone pokes in and shouts "If I want to murder you will you defend my right to do that?" I answer that I respect your desire to unwrap DRM and to murder me.. In both cases, you are subject to the laws of the land.
You may not have liked my question, but there was no shouting. Also, if you are going to quote someone, then you should actually quote them rather than paraphrase. The question had nothing whatsoever to do with defending my rights and I did not use the word "murder."

I asked you if you would support my choice to kill you.

dragonsbane said:
It is hypocritical for you to say it is OK to speed but not grab a tune using this app. You might not want to use this app, but that is just you. You are a SPEEDER for crying out loud. Our society is about to fall apart because you break the law "when you choose". UUUGH! The horror of it all.

I mean, my goodness, what would we do if everyone thought for themselves and made up their own minds about what they would and would not do! So much better if everyone just followed the laws of the land. I mean... if it is a law then it is good and should be obeyed!!!
I know that your position is quite weak and indefensible, but can you at least try to refrain from misrepresenting the statements that others have made.

No one said that it was OK to speed, but wrong to violate the DRM. Both are wrong, but you seem to think both are OK.

If everyone broke the law whenever it suited them, then our society would indeed fall apart.

No one said that all laws were good. When there is a bad law then you should work to change the law. The fact that there are some bad laws does not justify ignoring all laws.

dragonsbane said:
You, my friend, have argued yourself into a corner. You say we should not break laws but you willingly break them when it suits you. Why is that OK for you but not for me? I have said from the start: Do what you feel. Learn the law and the consequences for breaking it. But at the end of the day, make up your own mind about right and wrong... and follow it.
He never said it was OK for him to break the law. You are the one who said it is OK to break the law. He said it was wrong.

dragonsbane said:
Convince me of why it is wrong to break this law... but do not try to tell me that by breaking it I am doing something wrong. Illegal, yes. But since when is doing something illegal morally wrong?
According to your philosophy it would seem that nothing is ever morally wrong for an amoral person.
 

geniusj

macrumors regular
Feb 27, 2004
124
15
Sunnyvale, CA
the Rebel said:
Breaking the DRM is wrong regardless of whether or not it is against the law.
How do you figure? The second that file hits my computer, it's mine. So long as it stays on my hardware, I will do whatever I like with it. I will compress it, unwrap it, move bytes around, change the album art to ******, whatever I want.

I am following the spirit of the law. Meaning, that I am not doing anything that their DRM wrapper is designed to prevent.

The fact that you and a couple of others can turn this into a moral crusade is mind boggling to me.
the Rebel said:
The fact that it is also against the law only compounds the wrongness.
So Sue Me

the Rebel said:
No one said that it was OK to speed, but wrong to violate the DRM. Both are wrong, but you seem to think both are OK.
How can you turn the speeding thing around on him? He was referencing something that someone else said. And by this someone's actions, he is giving the message that speeding is OK and unwrapping a file is wrong. That is exactly the message is he conveying.
the Rebel said:
If everyone broke the law whenever it suited them, then our society would indeed fall apart.
People do this all the time. Speeding is an example, jay walking is an example, and piracy is another example. People will assess whether they should break a law based on their risk of getting caught. That's how humans work.
the Rebel said:
No one said that all laws were good. When there is a bad law then you should work to change the law. The fact that there are some bad laws does not justify ignoring all laws.
I can 100% guarantee you that there are laws that you break on a regular basis. Why do you ignore them?
the Rebel said:
He never said it was OK for him to break the law. You are the one who said it is OK to break the law. He said it was wrong.
If "he" is who i think "he" is, then "he" said that he speeds on occasion. Maybe he doesn't think it's OK, but he does it anyway. So his thoughts on the matter are irrelevant since they are obviously not strong enough to prevent him from doing it.

the Rebel said:
According to your philosophy it would seem that nothing is ever morally wrong for an amoral person.
That depends on your definition of morals. It can either be interpreted as one's own moral compass, in which case your statement would be correct. An amoral person would never find himself to be morally wrong. Society will judge the person based on their own moral compasses, which vary greatly from person to person.
 

matticus008

macrumors 68040
Jan 16, 2005
3,336
0
Bay Area, CA
geniusj said:
If "he" is who i think "he" is, then "he" said that he speeds on occasion. Maybe he doesn't think it's OK, but he does it anyway. So his thoughts on the matter are irrelevant since they are obviously not strong enough to prevent him from doing it.
No, they are not irrelevant. Doing something you know is wrong is not the same as doing something you know is wrong and pretending that it's NOT wrong to do. I said that if you know the law, know the consequences, know that you are breaking your OWN WORD, know that there are legal way to address your concerns, and you still CHOOSE to break the law because it's more convenient for you, that's your choice. It is not a correct choice, but it was your informed decision. That's why society steps in when you make bad calls. If it wasn't wrong to break society's rules, they wouldn't punish you for doing it.

And FYI, it has been proven time and again that you do not own the file. That's it.

This is all I have to say about this:
("You" is used in the general sense for "an individual" in the following.)

It comes down to this. The law says you can't bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM. The law also says that you are allowed to use this music in accordance with your fair use rights and in accordance to the terms set forth by the purchase agreement. The law does not say that you OWN the music (only the right to use it and any physical matter that is transferred to you in the sale--NOT the music itself [intellectual property still belongs to the author]) and it does not say you can reproduce it, remove copy protection, or redistribute it on your whim. The iTunes Terms of Service state themselves that you will not circumvent the DRM that comes with the music you buy, that you will use your purchased music in compliance with the DRM that it comes with, and that you will use iTunes alone to access the Music Store.

Using PyMusique is a clear and non-debatable violation of the iTunes Terms of Service, which are legally binding in a civil case. It is furthermore a violation of the DMCA, a law (whether you like it or not), which states that you cannot mess with DRM, binding in a criminal case. It is also a violation of copyright law because your duplication of the file without DRM allows you to use the file in a manner inconsistent with your purchase agreement (you bought it for FairPlay-enabled devices, not for all devices that exist and have no right to use it otherwise). It is a violation of what is morally right primarily and indisputably because you *agreed* to the Terms of Service explicitly and are now breaking your word. This is immoral (and would still be so even if it were not also illegal). It is also immoral to break the law to get what you want, and are not entitled to. Further, it is inappropriate and unwarranted to break the law when you have legal ways to deal with the situation which you are free to pursue.

You are confusing moral justification with rationalized justification. You are breaking the law because it's easier for you to do, not because it is the right thing to do. Historically, when people look back and see lawbreaking as "correct," it is because there were no legal methods to redress their complaints or because the legal channels had been exhausted. They knew the consequences of breaking the law and suffered them and also knew they were technically not in the right to do so. They did not merely break the law because it suited them while claiming it was morally right, as is being done here. They were not after an easier way to do something that was already allowed (and that they wanted to do the easier, illegal way), they were after gaining rights that were denied to them. They'd already taken the legals steps to protest and attempt change and exhausted them. No one is being denied rights to their own wellbeing and property here, they are merely being denied their (undeserved) freedom to abuse the property of someone else.

With regard to DRM and digital music, you have a series of legal options to accomplish your aims, which I've already stated numerous times. You can a) not buy DRM-based products, b) write letters of complaint and start (paper, authentic) petitions, c) write legislators and lobby for change in Congress, or d) sue the companies you feel are acting inappropriately or sue for the inappropriateness or illegality of the law. In this case, most people are not using legal and legitimate procedures to get their wishes, they are simply breaking the law because it is the easy thing to do. Do not confuse morals with sloth. And furthermore do not confuse your actions with the noble deeds of revolutionaries because they are not equivocable here. You are NOT entitled to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you.
 

geniusj

macrumors regular
Feb 27, 2004
124
15
Sunnyvale, CA
matticus008 said:
No, they are not irrelevant. Doing something you know is wrong is not the same as doing something you know is wrong and pretending that it's NOT wrong to do.
Are you claiming that you don't know that speeding is illegal? Because I know that under the DMCA, removing DRM is illegal. That is not true in many other countries, however (including the one where Jon Lech Johansen hails from if I'm not mistaken.) So now will you claim that his country is morally reprehensible?
 

matticus008

macrumors 68040
Jan 16, 2005
3,336
0
Bay Area, CA
geniusj said:
Are you claiming that you don't know that speeding is illegal? Because I know that under the DMCA, removing DRM is illegal. That is not true in many other countries, however (including the one where Jon Lech Johansen hails from if I'm not mistaken.) So now will you claim that his country is morally reprehensible?
I don't see where you get the idea that I'd think speeding isn't illegal. I've only said that it is several times. Whether or not the DMCA or similar legislation applies in other countries, the iTunes Terms of Service forbids tampering with it. That is legally binding, and morally unsound, wherever you happen to be. No DMCA? Okay. You've still got the iTunes TOS. No iTunes TOS in your country? That means no iTunes there, and therefore it's not an issue. But in this country, it exists and applies, period. I've already covered all this, and it would save you a lot of trouble if you would stop and think about it. His country has copyright laws, as well. Unless they also have legislation making DRM illegal, they also have the legal right as copyright holders to stipulate its presence until it is proved otherwise. It's illegal in every country, even DVD Jon's.
 

geniusj

macrumors regular
Feb 27, 2004
124
15
Sunnyvale, CA
matticus008 said:
I don't see where you get the idea that I'd think speeding isn't illegal.
I'll quote you:
matticus008 said:
Doing something you know is wrong is not the same as doing something you know is wrong and pretending that it's NOT wrong to do.
Since I know *I* wasn't pretending that what I was doing wasn't illegal, and you didn't specify who you were referring to, I assumed you were speaking of yourself.
matticus008 said:
I've only said that it is several times. Whether or not the DMCA or similar legislation applies in other countries, the iTunes Terms of Service forbids tampering with it. That is legally binding, and morally unsound, wherever you happen to be.
Click through agreements like the iTunes TOS have little to no legal foundation on which to stand. Their history has been shakey at best. It is also very possible to JLJ to have done this without never having clicked through that agreement, or even having signed up for an iTMS account. I don't even think that iTMS was even available in his country when he started.
matticus008 said:
No DMCA? Okay. You've still got the iTunes TOS.
Again, which could very well mean nothing.
matticus008 said:
No iTunes TOS in your country? That means no iTunes there, and therefore it's not an issue. But in this country, it exists and applies, period. I've already covered all this, and it would save you a lot of trouble if you would stop and think about it. His country has copyright laws, as well. Unless they also have legislation making DRM illegal, they also have the legal right as copyright holders to stipulate its presence until it is proved otherwise. It's illegal in every country, even DVD Jon's.
That is not a right for the copyright holder under copyright law. Prior to the DMCA, it was perfectly legal to do as he's doing. If there is no DMCA equivalent in his country, then it is legal. This is how he won the DVD case.
 

matticus008

macrumors 68040
Jan 16, 2005
3,336
0
Bay Area, CA
geniusj said:
I'll quote you:

Since I know *I* wasn't pretending that what I was doing wasn't illegal, and you didn't specify who you were referring to, I assumed you were speaking of yourself.
Um, no. That's not what that says. That says that speeding is illegal and that doing it anyway is doing so, even though you know it's illegal. The latter part states, Speeding, which you know is illegal, but that you pretend isn't wrong is a different matter. Both are illegal, and both are wrong, but in the former, you accept that reality and in the latter you don't.

Click through agreements like the iTunes TOS have little to no legal foundation on which to stand.
Not true. They have every right to deactivate your account for a violation of their TOS. Do not confuse the legality of Terms of Service with the legality of stipulations within software EULAs. The EULA is legal, sometimes the contents aren't. The contents ARE legal in this case.

That is not a right for the copyright holder under copyright law. Prior to the DMCA, it was perfectly legal to do as he's doing. If there is no DMCA equivalent in his country, then it is legal. This is how he won the DVD case.
No, it wasn't. If I sell you software that has a CD key designed so that you use it with just one machine (which happened long before the DMCA), you don't have a right to remove the CD key and use the software. The copyright holder was legally protecting his or her intellectual property with the CD key, and you agreed to those terms when buying it. That was always legal, and still is. The DMCA did not change that. It didn't make that CD key removal legal, nor did it make what was previously legal illegal.
 

geniusj

macrumors regular
Feb 27, 2004
124
15
Sunnyvale, CA
matticus008 said:
Not true. They have every right to deactivate your account for a violation of their TOS. Do not confuse the legality of Terms of Service with the legality of stipulations within software EULAs. The EULA is legal, sometimes the contents aren't. The contents ARE legal in this case.
Of course, but they can deactivate your account if they're having a bad day if they want. I'll never fight against that, that's their right.
matticus008 said:
No, it wasn't. If I sell you software that has a CD key designed so that you use it with just one machine (which happened long before the DMCA), you don't have a right to remove the CD key and use the software. The copyright holder was legally protecting his or her intellectual property with the CD key, and you agreed to those terms when buying it. That was always legal, and still is. The DMCA did not change that. It didn't make that CD key removal legal, nor did it make what was previously legal illegal.
Actually, I believe that it would have been legal to remove the CD Key from software you had purchased, provided that you didn't distribute it to others, and of course that you had purchased it legally. The software developers might not like it, but it was not illegal for you to do. Under the DMCA, however, this would be illegal.

The point I've been trying to make is that there's the law, and then there's the 'spirit of the law'. The PURPOSE of the DRM on these files, is to prevent distribution of the files to others. I am not doing that, and therefore I feel that I am at least abiding by the spirit of what they are trying to accomplish. There's no reason for them to go after me or anyone else in my shoes, because we are not doing anything that their DRM is trying to prevent. Whether or not this would stand up in court is irrelevant, as it won't come to that for me or for others doing the same thing that I'm doing. If we were distributing these files after unwrapping them, there would be a problem, and therefore a greater than 0% chance that they would go after us.

I'm not sure if they'll attempt to go after Jon or not, however doing so would probably not be the best PR move on their part. Believe it or not, outside the community of mac fanatics (let's just say in the overall geek community,) he has garnered a lot of respect.
 

saltysea@mac.co

macrumors newbie
Mar 22, 2005
4
0
matticus008 said:
No. Just no. This is not an appropriate forum for asking for help to do something illegal. Find your answers elsewhere.
I wasn't asking for help, I have no intention of doing this, and like I said I am no programmer. I was simply brainstorming, seemed like an easier work-around. In truth, I would have no need for such software, as I share "legally" with my DRM'ed and non-DRM'ed music files, and not that often.
 

dragonsbane

macrumors newbie
Mar 19, 2005
14
0
High Schoolers Arise!

Originally Posted by dragonsbane
Thank you. I could not have said it better myself. Now what was your point again since you just stated mine almost verbatim? Oh, right, don't use this app because it is wrong to break laws. I agree - if you break a law you are doing something wrong. But you just proved the larger issue which is - do what you want and be prepared for the consequences. All humans should do what they want. All humans should think for themselves. No one should ever be led by "the law". Do not abdicate your responsibility as a human to think for yourself. If you do not agree with a law - and do not mind the consequences if you get caught - then you should not follow it. Period. Never follow a law just because it is a law.

Yup, I see you now agree with my position. Thank you. It is all so clear now =)
Originally Posted by matticus008
Well then, there you go. As long as we're all clear that it is against the law and you're aware of that, that's all there is to it. Aside, of course, from the morality of breaking the law when you don't have cause to or breaking your word.
Originally Posted by geniusj
People do this all the time. Speeding is an example, jay walking is an example, and piracy is another example. People will assess whether they should break a law based on their risk of getting caught. That's how humans work.
Can't we all just get along? I mean for cripes sake! Humans do what they want. Breaking the law is illegal - not immoral. The more educated you are about laws, the more you will realize how many you break. Assuming that knowledge of breaking a law is what makes breaking it immoral, then learning about laws is akin to being immoral.

All I have ever said, and I believe this view is held by all but the most "law and order" hypocrites here, is that humans will always think for themselves and do what they wish. Laws are in place as guides and to let you know what society will do if they catch you breaking the law (and you do not have a good lawyer ;)

The concept that breaking the law makes you immoral is just silly. Breaking laws is illegal - it has nothing to do with morality. Morality is guided from within - not without. No other human can define my morals and I can not define morals for any one else.

How can someone else besides you define what is moral for you? Next thing you know someone will claim God defines morals and God only speaks through men who died 1,000+ years ago (or some other super conservative male like the Pope). Of course, you then have to answer the question why laws can change if they are moral. I mean, one minute the state is allowed to kill people as punishment and the next it is not. One minute women can not vote and the next they can. One minute Japan is not allowed to send troops abroad to kill people and the next they are. How can a law EVER be supreme to ones own moral compass?

http://www.daeken.com/2005/03/21/project-statement-for-pymusique - This is the blog of a friggin HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT who is working with DVD Jon to break this foolish lock. More power to the busy little group that re-unlocked iTMS in less than 24 hours.
 

the Rebel

macrumors member
Feb 24, 2005
37
8
geniusj said:
How do you figure? The second that file hits my computer, it's mine. So long as it stays on my hardware, I will do whatever I like with it. I will compress it, unwrap it, move bytes around, change the album art to ******, whatever I want.

I am following the spirit of the law. Meaning, that I am not doing anything that their DRM wrapper is designed to prevent.
The reason why it is wrong is quite simple. Before you downloaded the file to your computer, you contractually promised that you would not remove the DRM restrictions. If you then subsequently violate that contractual promise then you have done wrong.

geniusj said:
How can you turn the speeding thing around on him? He was referencing something that someone else said. And by this someone's actions, he is giving the message that speeding is OK and unwrapping a file is wrong.
He lied. He was NOT referencing what anyone said. He claimed that someone said it, but no one had said it.


geniusj said:
People do this all the time. Speeding is an example, jay walking is an example, and piracy is another example. People will assess whether they should break a law based on their risk of getting caught.
That does not change the fact that it is wrong.

geniusj said:
I can 100% guarantee you that there are laws that you break on a regular basis.
You can not guarantee any such thing. Just because some people break laws on a regular basis does not mean that everyone does.

geniusj said:
If "he" is who i think "he" is, then "he" said that he speeds on occasion. Maybe he doesn't think it's OK, but he does it anyway.
He explicitly said that speeding in violation of the law was wrong. Yet dragonsbane stated that he had said the exact opposite.

Admitting that you have done wrong is NOT equivalent to saying that it is OK to do wrong.
 

matticus008

macrumors 68040
Jan 16, 2005
3,336
0
Bay Area, CA
latergator116 said:
Yes, I know it is illegal, but the question was directed at the person I quoted (the Rebel).
We've been through this. It is both illegal (which makes it wrong, period, by definition) and morally wrong. Let's see how simple it can get:

1. ALL things that are illegal are wrong (because they are illegal, and breaking a law is breaking a social contract which is going against what society has decided is right, therefore what you are doing is wrong in the eyes of society).

2. Some things are wrong that are legal ("right"). Come up with your own examples. These are things that you can do because they law doesn't stop you, but that you shouldn't do.

3. Some things that are illegal (wrong) can also be morally justified, or right. This does not change the fact that they are ALSO STILL WRONG. These are things like refusing to pay illegal taxes, refusing to comply with racist or sexist laws, or refusing to hand over your property to the government because they demand it. These are forces that cause revolutions. These are violations of human rights or autocratic regimes oppressing people financially or politically. These are NOT people who are too lazy to do things the right way, or too stubborn to accept the fact that they are not entitled to free reign over the property of others, or people who don't believe in following laws. In other words, NOT DIGITAL MUSIC and NOT YOU.

There. Now you have it. All things that are illegal are wrong. They are wrong because of the definition of illegal. This is not open to interpretation or debate, it is a basic premise of society. Things that are wrong are not limited to things that are illegal, and things that are legal are not always entirely right, from a moral point of view. Occasionally, there have been instances where breaking the law (an action known and accepted as wrong) has been required to accomplish the goals of a repressed or controlled society. These actions were not undertaken lightly, nor were they unpunished, and no one broke the law simply because they wanted to or it was easier (like is being done with this issue).

Aside from the law, these actions are morally corrupt because you made an agreement to honor the terms of the iTunes Music Store. Forgetting about any applicable laws, you, as a free, thinking human being, gave your honor-bound word that you would not tamper with DRM and that you would only get your iTunes music from iTMS and the iTunes interface. You are now actively breaking that promise. That's how this is STILL WRONG, even if you want to disregard the laws.

You have no loophole and no moral ground for breaking the laws pertaining to your use of digital music. If you choose to do it anyway, do it knowing that you are WRONG and BREAKING THE LAW. Don't try to pretend that it's justified somehow, because it is not. Don't argue that this is not the case, because if this is a cause you truly believe in, you would have taken the legal and morally right steps to solving the problem. You have not done so, and merely want the easy way out, and disregarding the law is the easiest way to get what you want.
 

latergator116

macrumors 68000
Sep 30, 2003
1,675
0
Providence, RI
matticus008 said:
We've been through this. It is both illegal (which makes it wrong, period, by definition) and morally wrong. Let's see how simple it can get:

1. ALL things that are illegal are wrong (because they are illegal, and breaking a law is breaking a social contract which is going against what society has decided is right, therefore what you are doing is wrong in the eyes of society)...
Maybe my definition of morals is different from yours. Even though jay-walking is illegal, I see nothing morally wrong with it (as long as it is done safely).
 

matticus008

macrumors 68040
Jan 16, 2005
3,336
0
Bay Area, CA
latergator116 said:
Maybe my definition of morals is different from yours. Even though jay-walking is illegal, I see nothing morally wrong with it (as long as it is done safely).
That may be, and from your perspective it might be sufficient. However, your personal morals are not the only grounds of moral assessment. You must still comply with group morality (society), which ultimately has power over you. Group morality is the baseline, not individual morality.

Individual morality stops at the point where the decision is made and executed. The ramifications, effects, and consequences of that action then enter the realm of group morality, on which your decisions are judged. If you feel morally justified to do something which society has decided is wrong, you are judged to be immoral (even when you don't agree). Carjackers, for instance, may not feel immoral about their actions, but their moral judgment is not the defining characteristic we look to.
 

Doctor Q

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 19, 2002
37,549
3,625
Los Angeles
Dictionaries offer various meanings for the word "wrong", and since different posters rely on different meanings, either a dictionary meaning or one of their own interpretation, I think it is of little use to argue about whether using PyMusique is "wrong".

Sherlock tells me that "wrong" could mean
* not in conformity with fact or truth
* contrary to conscience or morality or law
* not appropriate for a purpose or occasion
* not conforming with accepted standards of propriety or taste
etc.

Even if we agreed on one of these definitions for the sake of discussion, we're left with "conscience" and "morality" and "law" and "accepted standards", all of which vary among people, communities, and countries.

I'm still interesting in hearing what people have to say about legal, technical, business, and societal issues to do with PyMusique and digital rights management, but I hope we can move on from "right" vs. "wrong".
 

latergator116

macrumors 68000
Sep 30, 2003
1,675
0
Providence, RI
matticus008 said:
That may be, and from your perspective it might be sufficient. However, your personal morals are not the only grounds of moral assessment. You must still comply with group morality (society), which ultimately has power over you. Group morality is the baseline, not individual morality.

Individual morality stops at the point where the decision is made and executed. The ramifications, effects, and consequences of that action then enter the realm of group morality, on which your decisions are judged. If you feel morally justified to do something which society has decided is wrong, you are judged to be immoral (even when you don't agree). Carjackers, for instance, may not feel immoral about their actions, but their moral judgment is not the defining characteristic we look to.
If I decide to break a law that does not affect anyone other than myself, then I have all the moral right to do that. (e.g. jay-walking, downloading programs that I wouldn't normally buy, etc.) I know I am taking a risk by breaking certain laws, but I take full responsibility if caught.
 

latergator116

macrumors 68000
Sep 30, 2003
1,675
0
Providence, RI
Doctor Q said:
I'm still interesting in hearing what people have to say about legal, technical, business, and societal issues to do with PyMusique and digital rights management, but I hope we can move on from "right" vs. "wrong".
Personally, I don't like the restricitions of DRM, so I think PyMusique is a very usefull program. The record industries should'nt assume people are going to use the music illegaly. I mean, if someone wanted to get a song with out all the limitations of DRM, they could easily use limewire. Legaly, the person that created the program has done nothing wrong, so I don't see how Apple or the RIAA could come up with a lawsuit. Quick question, do most CD's have DRM protection or is it just music from the iTMS?
 

matticus008

macrumors 68040
Jan 16, 2005
3,336
0
Bay Area, CA
latergator116 said:
If I decide to break a law that does not affect anyone other than myself, then I have all the moral right to do that. (e.g. jay-walking, downloading programs that I wouldn't normally buy, etc.) I know I am taking a risk by breaking certain laws, but I will take full responsibility if caught.
I don't really think there's all that much to discuss about jaywalking (it's a law for public safety, and a good one as you know if you live in a major city where jaywalkers regularly get hit), and downloading programs (whether you'd pay for them or not) does still hurt other people. Even if the authors aren't losing out on sales (which they are, because the number of programs in use vs. the number of licenses sold becomes disproportionate), the scale of piracy has made it so that legitimate users have to put up with increasingly burdensome measures to use and maintain software that they are using in full compliance with license agreements and laws.

Now, since the moderator has made a very good point about sticking to technical and legal aspects of this conversation, I can take a seat because there's not much to say that hasn't been said. Everyone has already accepted that this software is unlawful (but now will probably try to come up with reasons it isn't, since the right/wrong issue has now been closed). If we could have a constructive conversation about DRM and getting cross-compatibility with players, then there would be more material to discuss. DRM is a reality we have to accept for years of unrestricted piracy and technological exploitation, now let's focus on getting it to work for us and allowing people more flexibility without lessening the security.
 

matticus008

macrumors 68040
Jan 16, 2005
3,336
0
Bay Area, CA
latergator116 said:
Personally, I don't like the restricitions of DRM, so I think PyMusique is a very usefull program. The record industries should'nt assume people are going to use the music illegaly. I mean, if someone wanted to get a song with out all the limitations of DRM, they could easily use limewire. Legaly, the person that created the program has done nothing wrong, so I don't see how Apple or the RIAA could come up with a lawsuit. Quick question, do most CD's have DRM protection or is it just music from the iTMS?
No, CDs don't have DRM. Some have copy protection, which is designed to prevent customers from extracting the digital audio from the disc to create WAV or compressed audio files. As for the creator of the software, it's up to the courts to decide whether or not he's broken the law in accordance with his country and any applicable international laws. This isn't as simple a case as his DeCSS work. As far as using the software in the United States, it is indeed unlawful. The record companies work under the assumption that they are going to lose some sales to piracy. All companies work under this model. They implemented DRM to work like those beeper things at the doors of retail stores. Sometimes they go off when you've done nothing wrong, and some shoplifters will still get past the system, but it cuts down on theft considerably. Was it illegal for stores to put in those scanners? Should they have trusted their customers more?

EDIT: And you've already indicated that you understand that PyMusique was illegal earlier in the thread, so doesn't that prove the RIAA's position on the matter? People ARE attempting to circumvent the laws, so PyMusique is exactly the sort of reason for increased protection of digital content.
 

latergator116

macrumors 68000
Sep 30, 2003
1,675
0
Providence, RI
matticus008 said:
No, CDs don't have DRM. Some have copy protection, which is designed to prevent customers from extracting the digital audio from the disc to create WAV or compressed audio files. As for the creator of the software, it's up to the courts to decide whether or not he's broken the law in accordance with his country and any applicable international laws. This isn't as simple a case as his DeCSS work. As far as using the software in the United States, it is indeed unlawful. The record companies work under the assumption that they are going to lose some sales to piracy. All companies work under this model. They implemented DRM to work like those beeper things at the doors of retail stores. Sometimes they go off when you've done nothing wrong, and some shoplifters will still get past the system, but it cuts down on theft considerably. Was it illegal for stores to put in those scanners? Should they have trusted their customers more?

EDIT: And you've already indicated that you understand that PyMusique was illegal earlier in the thread, so doesn't that prove the RIAA's position on the matter? People ARE attempting to circumvent the laws, so PyMusique is exactly the sort of reason for increased protection of digital content.
In my previous post I said the person that created the program has not broken the law. And yes, I realize peolpe who use this program are breaking the law.