'DVD Jon' Launches Doubletwist: Share and Sync Protected iTunes Music

[eastcoastsurfer]

This guy ain't fighting for my rights.
He's fighting artists rights for a fair return on their investment.
I just don't get how people think it's their "right" to do what they want with other people's property.
Hey you don't like the system...go change it or don't play in the sandbox.

If someone makes a set of keys that will get you into the bank that is charging you crazy interest rates are you going to use them too?

The fact is you can buy CD's and DVD's. And in most cases listen or watch where and when you want for as long as you want.
Pay a bit less for downloads and get a few restrictions thrown in. So where is the crime?
This guy is not helping you listen he's enabling you to share which is stealing...the end.
The guy is a rip off artist with no concern for anything but his own distorted view of how he sees life.

I have no love for the way some record co's do business but until they and the artists come up with a better way ...well it's their property and their loss if you don't want to buy. No one is forcing you to purchase these downloads.

Stealing is stealing.
But I guess our brave new society doesn't care about honesty anymore

So I didn't buy the right to listen to a song? I thought that's what the record companies have been telling me for years. You don't 'own' the song, just the right to listen it. So, when I want to listen to it on my computer (or any other device) I'm now not allowed? Talk about circular logic.

And honesty? You're kidding right? People are buying songs thinking they are being honest and doing the right thing (helping artists, etc...), but then they can't play the song on anything else but their iPod. So in your world I need to buy the CD to play in my car, buy the mp3 to play on my ipod (but it twice actually b/c sometimes I listen to it on my computer), then buy the ring tone, and then pay for it anytime I happen to hear it on the radio.

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

I love when people try to argue that pirating copyrighted material is a lawful "right." Honestly, you really need to revisit the concept of what an "absolute right" is. No person, in any society, has an absolute right to do anything. You don't have the right the act in certain ways. Why? Because your resulting actions hurt other people's rights. It's the whole shouting fire in a crowded theater concept that people forget.

Can you explain where I said anything about pirating the music? I own a song I bought from iTMS and want it to play on my brand new Zune. You're saying if get the song to play on the Zune I'm now pirating? And we're not talking about absolute rights, but copyright law which has a little clause called 'Fair Use' in it.

As for the last part of your comment, you don't own the content. You don't own the rights to a song. You purchased the ability to listen to a song via a certain playback method. It's no different than saying, "Hey, I purchased a record back in the 1960's. I shouldn't have to pay for a CD of that song now, I already have it on record!" No, you have the ability to listen to that song via a vinyl record. If you would like to listen to that song with a CD player, you'll need to buy a version of that song in the necessary format. It's the same with digital files. (Sorry, it is. Megabyte's of data isn't any less tangible than a old dusty record.) If you bought a song on iTunes, you agreed to the license and any restrictions that license included. If you don't like those restrictions, acquire the song in a different way that will allow you to listen to the song the way you would like.

So I purchased the right to listen to a song via a certain playback method? Fine. Where are all my 'free' (10c?) replacement CDs of all the CDs I've owned over years that have been scratched and no longer play? By your logic, I "purchased the ability to listen to a song via a certain playback method." So, since I already 'own' that method why can't get I replacement CDs at cost? You can't have it both ways. Either follow your argument to its conclusion or don't make it.

The reason digital media has the record companies so irked is that they won't be able to do a mass upsell again. When going from vinyl to tape, people re-bought a lot of their music. Then again from tape to CD. Now if what you're trying to argue is that every time a new player comes out we should have to rebuy all our music again, then I don't know what else to say.

 

[oldwatery]

So I didn't buy the right to listen to a song? I thought that's what the record companies have been telling me for years. You don't 'own' the song, just the right to listen it. So, when I want to listen to it on my computer (or any other device) I'm now not allowed? Talk about circular logic.

And honesty? You're kidding right? People are buying songs thinking they are being honest and doing the right thing (helping artists, etc...), but then they can't play the song on anything else but their iPod. So in your world I need to buy the CD to play in my car, buy the mp3 to play on my ipod (but it twice actually b/c sometimes I listen to it on my computer), then buy the ring tone, and then pay for it anytime I happen to hear it on the radio.

That is not what I am saying.
And it is not what is happening in the real world.
I am an artist. You buy a painting from me and that is it. You own the painting.
You have no right to copy it so you can look at it in you holiday home or wherever as well as your living room.

And no you don't have to buy all those different copies of a song like you said. (and implied that I had stated)
Your iTunes song can be heard in your car, on your stereo or your computer.
What is the problem with that?
Buy the CD and listen to it wherever you want.
And as far as I'm aware over the air radio is still free!

This kid did not produce his software to aid in your rights.
He built it so people could share and give away others property.

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

That is not what I am saying.
And it is not what is happening in the real world.
I am an artist. You buy a painting from me and that is it. You own the painting.
You have no right to copy it so you can look at it in you holiday home or wherever as well as your living room.

The painting analogy doesn't work b/c since I own the painting I can take it anywhere I want. Hang it in any house I want to. The analogy might work if you said I purchased the painting but it can only be shown in this room of this house.

Since you brought up the 'real world' we all know no amount of DRM will stop the people who want to pirate music. All DRM does is frustrate the people who do buy music and IMHO push them to getting it from other sources. This guys tool helps remove some of the frustration from people who buy DRMed music and would like to listen to it in non-Apple approved places.

And no you don't have to buy all those different copies of a song like you said. (and implied that I had stated)
Your iTunes song can be heard in your car, on your stereo or your computer.
What is the problem with that?
Buy the CD and listen to it wherever you want.
And as far as I'm aware over the air radio is still free!

This kid did not produce his software to aid in your rights.
He built it so people could share and give away others property.

My iTMS can be heard in the car if I burn it lossy to a CD or have a special device hooking up my iPod to the car. What if I just got a new car with that MS Sync technology in it? Whoops, have to lower the quality of all my iTMS purchased music by burning to a CD and then re-ripping it or buy it all again or go find it online DRM free. I guess if I go find it DRM free I'm pirating now?

 

[oldwatery]

The painting analogy doesn't work b/c since I own the painting I can take it anywhere I want. Hang it in any house I want to. The analogy might work if you said I purchased the painting but it can only be shown in this room of this house.

Since you brought up the 'real world' we all know no amount of DRM will stop the people who want to pirate music. All DRM does is frustrate the people who do buy music and IMHO push them to getting it from other sources. This guys tool helps remove some of the frustration from people who buy DRMed music and would like to listen to it in non-Apple approved places.

My iTMS can be heard in the car if I burn it lossy to a CD or have a special device hooking up my iPod to the car. What if I just got a new car with that MS Sync technology in it? Whoops, have to lower the quality of all my iTMS purchased music by burning to a CD and then re-ripping it or buy it all again or go find it online DRM free. I guess if I go find it DRM free I'm pirating now?

Good debate eh!
But you are so missing my point.
I certainly did not say buying DRM free music is piracy.
The point is that you have choices.
You don't like Apple's iTunes rules buy the music somewhere else.
You can by the CD for complete portability and reproduce it to play wherever you want.
You can buy DRM free for the same usage but with less fidelity (usually) for less money.
Or you can buy DRM protected for slightly less portability for even less money.
It's your choice.
If there were no choices other than iTunes I would understand your argument.
But this about rights and you or I don't have any rights over other peoples stuff. Just as you would not want them to have rights over your property.

And BTW.....iTunes music is already lossy so what's the deal with burning it to a CD to reproduce in another lossy format? How else are you expecting to hear it in your car without an adapter or something. That is hardly the music industry's responsibility.

I do agree that in the real world the thieves will steal whatever they want. But again that is not the point.

 

[oban14]

That is not what I am saying.
And it is not what is happening in the real world.
I am an artist. You buy a painting from me and that is it. You own the painting.
You have no right to copy it so you can look at it in you holiday home or wherever as well as your living room.

And no you don't have to buy all those different copies of a song like you said. (and implied that I had stated)
Your iTunes song can be heard in your car, on your stereo or your computer.
What is the problem with that?
Buy the CD and listen to it wherever you want.
And as far as I'm aware over the air radio is still free!

This kid did not produce his software to aid in your rights.
He built it so people could share and give away others property.

I think you need to learn more about what fair use means before you even engage in this debate.

If I buy a painting from you, I absolutely have the right to make a copy of it. I could make 100 copies of it, and if the technology were available I'd legally be allowed to make an exact replica down to the atomic or molecular level. I could hang it in every room in my house, keep one copy in every house, and keep extra copies in the trunk of my car. That is all protected by fair use.

What I am not allowed to do is give away or sell the copies I've made without your permission.

So here are some questions for you, they are all yes or no questions, so please take 30 seconds to answer them:

1) Is it OK for me to record a song off the radio and listen to it whenever I want?
2) Is it OK for me to tivo a video off of MTV and watch it/listen to it whenever I want?
3) Is it OK for me to take the song I recorded off the radio or MTV and transfer it to my ipod?
4) How about my computer?
5) What if my computer is my tivo?

TIA.

 

[MacBoySeattle]

LOL Who actually buys music on iTunes anyway who would need this? If you need music in a normal non crappy Apple proprietary format AND get it for free, you just download it on Shareaza. Stupid Apple people.If Jobs can get you to pay money for what is readily available for free you must be stupid.

 

[milo]

But this about rights and you or I don't have any rights over other peoples stuff. Just as you would not want them to have rights over your property.

That simply isn't true. People do have some rights over copyrighted content, it's called fair use.

Copyright owners have some rights over their content. But they don't have 100% complete control, it simply isn't allowed by copyright law because that wouldn't benefit the public good.

LOL Who actually buys music on iTunes anyway who would need this? If you need music in a normal non crappy Apple proprietary format AND get it for free, you just download it on Shareaza. Stupid Apple people.If Jobs can get you to pay money for what is readily available for free you must be stupid.

You could get a CD by shoplifting it and paying nothing. Does that mean people who pay money for it are stupid?

Don't you think that some people actually realize that the people creating content make a living from people buying it? And that some people actually *want* to buy the content so the creators can get paid (and be able to keep creating content)?

 

[oban14]

LOL Who actually buys music on iTunes anyway who would need this? If you need music in a normal non crappy Apple proprietary format AND get it for free, you just download it on Shareaza. Stupid Apple people.If Jobs can get you to pay money for what is readily available for free you must be stupid.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. I think some music is worth paying for and other music is not worth paying for. I think downloading an album (illegally) for free, listening to it, and then deciding you don't like it/deleting it is perfectly ok from a moral perspective. But I think if you do like the music you've downloaded for free you should go buy the CD. It's the moral thing to do. I think it is sad that we've allowed laws to get passed which make copying music a stiffer crime than just going to Wal-Mart and physically stealing the CD.

I think iTMS is a rip off because they charge 10 dollars for an album of DRM-crippled, poor quality audio. I typically pay between 3 and 10 dollars for CDs that are of great quality, have no DRM, and I can rip/transfer them to any format or device I'd like.

What I don't get are the clowns around here who think it is the music industry's god given right to see an outdated business model sustained.

You have to vote with your dollars. I've never bought a song off of iTMS and I never will, but they've sold a lot of songs so someone must like the service. Different strokes.

 

[MacBoySeattle]

LOL aww I've received a glowing character reference. Dude welcome to the real world. Hundreds of millions of people download copyrighted music for free every day. I could give a crap about your moral judgements. A law is only a law when it can be enforced with some probability. That law can't be enforced for the vast majority of people who break it, so it means NOTHING.

 

[oban14]

LOL aww I've received a glowing character reference. Dude welcome to the real world. Hundreds of millions of people download copyrighted music for free every day. I could give a crap about your moral judgements. A law is only a law when it can be enforced with some probability. That law can't be enforced for the vast majority of people who break it, so it means NOTHING.

I think this attitude is much more prevalent on those 25 and under, but I also think this attitude will become the dominant opinion as time moves forward and the dinosaurs who remember buying LPs start dying off. I need to ask though: When you love a band or an album that you've downloaded, do you buy a copy? Do you think the artists should be compensated?

Personally, the artists I care about would create what they make for free. But I fanatically support the artists I care about regardless... I could care less if Britney or Eminem decide to quit working on music because not enough people were buying it.

 

[milo]

I think iTMS is a rip off because they charge 10 dollars for an album of DRM-crippled, poor quality audio.

For the record, iTunes has many tracks that are DRM free and at 256 AAC. While that's not lossless, it's certainly not "poor" quality.

 

[oban14]

For the record, iTunes has many tracks that are DRM free and at 256 AAC. While that's not lossless, it's certainly not "poor" quality.

For the record, every song and album I own is DRM free and at 1411 kbps.

I rip flac or MP3 at 320, so iTunes still has nothing to offer me. I'd pay 10 cents a song for 256 AAC files without DRM, but that's it.

 

[milo]

For the record, every song and album I own is DRM free and at 1411 kbps.

I rip flac or MP3 at 320, so iTunes still has nothing to offer me. I'd pay 10 cents a song for 256 AAC files without DRM, but that's it.

If you care about sound quality why are you ripping to mp3 instead of the superior AAC format? I doubt your mp3s sound any better than 256 AAC due to your choice of a worse codec.

I can totally see the point of buying CDs, but they still are often more expensive, and they don't offer the option of buying individual songs.

 

[swagi]

I love when people try to argue that pirating copyrighted material is a lawful "right." Honestly, you really need to revisit the concept of what an "absolute right" is. No person, in any society, has an absolute right to do anything. You don't have the right the act in certain ways. Why? Because your resulting actions hurt other people's rights. It's the whole shouting fire in a crowded theater concept that people forget.

Converting copyrighted material for my personal use is my business and will always be. O.K., Einstein, little reality check here:

Last time I checked, I could perfectly rip the 'Buena Vista Social Club'-CD I bought to iTunes. I could then balantly (in your argument) break the copyright, and use it as background music for my iPhote slideshow of Cuba.

Last time I checked, there were literally 50% of the Top100 songs containing OLD copyrighted material (e.g. Kylie Minogue's new song uses the Tainted Love guitar/bass riff in part of the songs).

Last time I checked, sampling was an acclaimed method of producing new music.

Last time I checked, nearly no Mac user declined using HandBrake, to get DVD-content on their Apple TVs, XBoxes or PS3s (me included). We bought the DVDs, but it's so cool, to keep the DVDs in the rack and just stream the content to another room! (Btw: Thx again for cracking that, Jon. Without you, this streaming appearance wouldn't be possible!)

All four examples are pirating by your definition. You maybe should get a grip. Just because we want to use our bought content more freely, we don't upload it on the web.

And NO, I AM NO PIRATE!

 

[oban14]

If you care about sound quality why are you ripping to mp3 instead of the superior AAC format? I doubt your mp3s sound any better than 256 AAC due to your choice of a worse codec.

I can totally see the point of buying CDs, but they still are often more expensive, and they don't offer the option of buying individual songs.

320 MP3 is superior to 256 AAC, and MP3 is a more broadly supported format. I prefer FLAC or CD sound if given the choice, however.

I don't know where you're buying your CDs. Go check out half.com or your local used CD store. It is a very rare purchase when I spend more than 10 dollars on a CD, though I still do on some very new releases.

 

[stupidregister]

Frankly, I don't consider your "argument" worthy of dignifying with a response. Not to mention that it's obvious that you're talked yourself into the notion that there's nothing wrong with your attitude.

In other words, you don't have a decent counter-argument.

I still don't understand your knee-jerk reaction to "my attitude". I never even said I agreed with the alternate idea that I mentioned. It was just meant to show that the original poster's idea was not the only option.

 

[milo]

Last time I checked, there were literally 50% of the Top100 songs containing OLD copyrighted material (e.g. Kylie Minogue's new song uses the Tainted Love guitar/bass riff in part of the songs).

Last time I checked, sampling was an acclaimed method of producing new music.

While it happens, and it is sometimes acclaimed, it usually is done these days both with permission, and with money changing hands. Using a sample without explicit permission can lead to legal problems and having to give your record profits to the guy you sampled - look at Bittersweet Symphony.

320 MP3 is superior to 256 AAC, and MP3 is a more broadly supported format. I prefer FLAC or CD sound if given the choice, however.

I still don't get why you're using mp3 if you care about quality. To be honest, I bet you couldn't hear the difference between the two (or probably between lossless either) in a blind listening comparison.

And it's funny to hear you insisting that people should buy the CD so the artist gets paid...but you buy many CDs used. You do realize that the artist makes nothing when you buy a used CD, right?


And stupidregister, I'm done with you. Don't even bother.

 

[stupidregister]

And stupidregister, I'm done with you. Don't even bother.

Cool, I guess you admit that you were wrong. That is fine with me.

 

[milo]

Cool, I guess you admit that you were wrong. That is fine with me.

Whatever helps your self esteem, cowboy.

 

[Can]

Because this discussion have evolved from "a new sweet software platform" to a copyright law discussion I would like to recommend the following clip for continuing the debate:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/187 -> Larry Lessig: How creativity is being strangled by the law

 

[APPLENEWBIE]

Wow, what an interesting thread! oh, wait a minute... gotta get the door...

"Hi. I am from Apple's legal department. We understand that you have been reading about breaking our DRM. You wouldn't be doing that, would you? Because, that would be bad. Really bad."

(Kicks computer power cord out of wall)

 

[stupidregister]

Whatever helps your self esteem, cowboy.

Thanks, cowgirl.

 

[oban14]

While it happens, and it is sometimes acclaimed, it usually is done these days both with permission, and with money changing hands. Using a sample without explicit permission can lead to legal problems and having to give your record profits to the guy you sampled - look at Bittersweet Symphony.



I still don't get why you're using mp3 if you care about quality. To be honest, I bet you couldn't hear the difference between the two (or probably between lossless either) in a blind listening comparison.

And it's funny to hear you insisting that people should buy the CD so the artist gets paid...but you buy many CDs used. You do realize that the artist makes nothing when you buy a used CD, right?

First of all, your assumption that the artist receives nothing when I buy a used CD shows a blatant ignorance when it comes to economics. No, they won't get the same cheque from their record company, but I am removing a used copy from circulation, meaning the next person who goes looking for the album will have to buy a new copy. Your assumption is the same as saying that buying chicken in the supermarket isn't really killing a chicken, because it's already dead.

I think buying CDs from a major label is one of the worst ways to support the artists. I try to go to shows, buy merchandise, or buy albums directly from the artists wherever possible. The sooner the recording companies go under (or more likely, simply become quid pro quo marketing companies) the better.

As for listening tests, you might be right. But like I said, I use MP3 over AAC because the bit rate is higher and it's more widely supported. Pick any random device out there, odds are greater that it'll support MP3s instead of AAC files.

 

[cgc]

It bugs me the media reports so much on this wanker...he's a criminal, don't glamorize him.