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

[Wiggin]

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

I think there is something that is left out of these arguments...er, discussions. There is one significant legal difference between buying music on a CD and purchasing via iTunes (and I assume other legal download services) that people conveniently forget. None of my CDs came with a legal agreement or explicit statement of how I would or would not use the CD. There are implicit understandings based on copyright laws and fair use that govern what I do with the CD. And you are all basing your arguments on that model.

In contrast, your iTunes purchases do come with a legal agreement. You agreed to it when you installed iTunes, and you confirm your agreement with every iTunes update you install, and you agreed to it when you created you iTunes account. Most of you probably just clicked OK and proceeded to use iTunes without actually reading the document. But it is a legal document, and you agreed to it. And like any legal agreement, you can in fact agree to give up certain rights. It's very similar to software license agreements that state you can only the software on a certain number of computers, etc, etc. The iTunes agreement has additional terms outlining how you can use iTunes purchases. The latest version has terms for your use of movie rentals. Here's one particular line that you agreed to:

"Your use of any Products purchased or rented (as applicable) from the iTunes Store is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the Terms of Service, including, without limitation, the Usage Rules set forth therein." [my emphasis on "Usage Rules"]

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

Fair use is still a powerful legal argument (I hesitate to call it a "right"), but like it or not your acceptance of the iTunes service agreement will limit, to some degree, what you can do under fair use.

 

[oban14]

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

I think he's a hero. Of course, a lot of people thought Martin Luther King and Ghandi were criminals at one point.

 

[cgc]

I think he's a hero. Of course, a lot of people thought Martin Luther King and Ghandi were criminals at one point.

...while others thought Davis Koresh was the final prophet. I don't think we should intermix what is legal with what is right. I'm all for DRM-free lossless music, but this isn't the (ethical) way to do it.

 

[123]

But like I said, I use MP3 over AAC because the bit rate is higher

Higher bit rate doesn't mean higher quality.

I don't think we should intermix what is legal with what is right.

Then don't do it. He won the case.

 

[w00master]

I think there is something that is left out of these arguments...er, discussions. There is one significant legal difference between buying music on a CD and purchasing via iTunes (and I assume other legal download services) that people conveniently forget. None of my CDs came with a legal agreement or explicit statement of how I would or would not use the CD. There are implicit understandings based on copyright laws and fair use that govern what I do with the CD. And you are all basing your arguments on that model.

In contrast, your iTunes purchases do come with a legal agreement. You agreed to it when you installed iTunes, and you confirm your agreement with every iTunes update you install, and you agreed to it when you created you iTunes account. Most of you probably just clicked OK and proceeded to use iTunes without actually reading the document. But it is a legal document, and you agreed to it. And like any legal agreement, you can in fact agree to give up certain rights. It's very similar to software license agreements that state you can only the software on a certain number of computers, etc, etc. The iTunes agreement has additional terms outlining how you can use iTunes purchases. The latest version has terms for your use of movie rentals. Here's one particular line that you agreed to:

Fair use is still a powerful legal argument (I hesitate to call it a "right"), but like it or not your acceptance of the iTunes service agreement will limit, to some degree, what you can do under fair use.

Which is why these "legal agreements" are inherently wrong.

The general trend is to digital downloads and away from physical media. What these "legal" agreements ultimately do is attempt to rid of any "fair use" possibilities. Imagine a world that has gone entirely to digital downloads, and a music student is doing a paper, presentation, etc. on rock music. If this person only has an iTunes DRM'd song, shouldn't he/she be able to use the song, edit it for a presentation/video, and fairly cite that piece in this student work? The EULAs would say no. I say, fair use is fair use. This student *should* be able to do this.

w00master

 

[psxndc]

So you hate someone that's fighting for your rights? If the *IAA had their way you would pay every time you heard or a song or saw a movie. There would be no such thing as buying a DVD or CD. We are also supposed to have a fair use with copyrighted content. I don't know about you, but I would consider fair use to be able to watch or listen to content that I have bought and own on any device that I own.

It's not a "right" he's fighting for. You have no "right" to be entertained. If the RIAA had their way, fine. Then I wouldn't listen to their music or watch the MPAAs DVDs. I probably be a lot more productive with my life.

 

[psxndc]

Here is another idea - if you don't want your material to be freely copied then don't release it in the first place.

That's the whole POINT of copyright - to give the owner of the copyright control over how their music is copied and distributed. But he's taking that right and saying "no, I think my way is right, so I don't care what you're rights are."

 

[psxndc]

I think he's a hero. Of course, a lot of people thought Martin Luther King and Ghandi were criminals at one point.

Wow. This is like the anti-Nazi Internet Principle. When someone arguably "bad" is analogized to a pretty-universally-accepted-as-amazing person, the argument is over.

My whole point is that you agreed to certain terms when you bought the song through iTunes. Now people are unilaterally changing those terms. If Apple did it and said you can no longer listen to a song more than 100 times, and it applies to all the tracks you bought before, people would (understandably and reasonably) flip out.

This guy is basically saying "ignore the agreements you made - I'll provide you a work around." Forget copyright etc for a minute - he's basically saying it's ok to break your word. And I'm not talking about pirating or sharing with friends. If Apple says it will sell you an AAC that you can't play on other devices and you agree, THAT'S THE DEAL YOU MADE. To the poster above that says "people don't know" wel, duh, READ. It's all there when you click "ok." Can't be bothered to read what you're agreeing to? Don't come crying to me.

Is going back on what you've agreed to really what people are ok with? I'm not. If you don't like the deal, don't agree.

 

[oban14]

Then don't do it. He won the case.

Nice to see someone else who understands where I'm coming from!

 

[oban14]

Wow. This is like the anti-Nazi Internet Principle. When someone arguably "bad" is analogized to a pretty-universally-accepted-as-amazing person, the argument is over.

My whole point is that you agreed to certain terms when you bought the song through iTunes. Now people are unilaterally changing those terms. If Apple did it and said you can no longer listen to a song more than 100 times, and it applies to all the tracks you bought before, people would (understandably and reasonably) flip out.

I see you know my work, and are a student of the game! Well parried, my rapier witted friend!

This guy is basically saying "ignore the agreements you made - I'll provide you a work around." Forget copyright etc for a minute - he's basically saying it's ok to break your word. And I'm not talking about pirating or sharing with friends. If Apple says it will sell you an AAC that you can't play on other devices and you agree, THAT'S THE DEAL YOU MADE. To the poster above that says "people don't know" wel, duh, READ. It's all there when you click "ok." Can't be bothered to read what you're agreeing to? Don't come crying to me.

Is going back on what you've agreed to really what people are ok with? I'm not. If you don't like the deal, don't agree.

Because EULAs are completely unenforcable legally and immoral by anyone's reasonable definition. Just as I can't agree to let someone murder me or sell myself into slavery, we are allowed certain inalienable rights for fair use. EULAs often violate the legal and moral principles that allow these rights, and truthfully, they should all be thrown in a bonfire.

But I guess you can consider me a step ahead - I won't use iTMS due to their EULA, their DRM, and their general restrictions. I understand a lot of people use it, but I'm not one of them. If someone wants to strip DRM off of an iTunes song so they can copy it to their PS3, I say god bless 'em, regardless of what sort of legalese BS they skipped through while installing iTunes.

Honestly, does anyone here actually read these things? Who has the time?

 

[Wiggin]

Imagine a world that has gone entirely to digital downloads, and a music student is doing a paper, presentation, etc. on rock music. If this person only has an iTunes DRM'd song, shouldn't he/she be able to use the song, edit it for a presentation/video, and fairly cite that piece in this student work? The EULAs would say no. I say, fair use is fair use. This student *should* be able to do this.

w00master

I agree 100%, in principle.

However, then we get to practical application. All you need to do is create a DRM system that both allows for fair use AND protects the interests of the copyright holder. In the past, the protection was provided by the fact that making copies was difficult (ie, records before cassette tapes), time consuming (copying a book), expensive (buying blank media), or degraded the quality of the work (copying CDs to cassette).

Now with fast computers and the internet, all of those barriers protecting the work have been knocked down. So now we have DRM as the new barrier. I really don't get why people are complaining. This new barrier is just as easily defeated as those old ones, if you were willing to invest the time, money, or effort and are willing to accept a degradation in quality. Nowhere in principle of fair use does it say that it has to be cheap or easy to make copies of protected work.

I don't ever recall people complaining in the 80's that the price of blank cassettes were a barrier to fair use, or that their fair use rights have been violated by the fact that it's a pain in the arse to photocopy a book.

No, the problem today is that people are lazy with a sense of entitlement. I think if I had to pay for expensive blank cassette tapes to make copies of my CDs to play in my Walkman and in the car, you can pony up the 10 cents for a blank CD to burn your iTunes music and re-rip it as MP3.

And yes, in those days when we were making cassettes of our CDs, we had to do it while walking up hill both ways through 5-foot snow drifts.

PS: Just so you know, I don't like DRM either; and I hope it eventually goes away. But until someone comes up with a better way to allow fair use while providing an appropriate barrier to protect the work, it's a necessary evil.

 

[Wiggin]

Because EULAs are completely unenforcable legally and immoral by anyone's reasonable definition. Just as I can't agree to let someone murder me or sell myself into slavery, we are allowed certain inalienable rights for fair use. EULAs often violate the legal and moral principles that allow these rights, and truthfully, they should all be thrown in a bonfire.

....

Honestly, does anyone here actually read these things? Who has the time?

I'm sorry, please don't take this as a personal attack or insult, but I can't help but wonder how long you've been around?

Are you seriously comparing fair use to murder and slavery? Do you really think fair use is a moral issue? Is it truly your stance the fair use is an inalienable right?

I'm really struggling to understand how/why you measure the importance of fair use with such extreme examples and lofty standards.

As to your last statement, failure to read a legal document you agreed to is not a defense in a court of law. I certainly hope when you buy a car or house, rent an apartment, sign a job contract, purchase an insurance policy, join a gym, or any of the hundreds of other documents you agree to in everyday life that you actually read them. Otherwise, sooner or later, you are going to get burned. And not reading the contract isn't going to help you.

BTW, I don't read EULAs either and have only recently read a few of the sections of the iTunes agreement. But I was very familiar with the terms associated with purchasing iTunes content before I purchased any. it's kind of hard to miss it. And if it turns out there's something I don't agree with...well, that my own dang fault for not reading the agreement.

 

[Can]

My whole point is that you agreed to certain terms when you bought the song through iTunes. Now people are unilaterally changing those terms.

Get your facts straight mister. In Norway the Norwegian "forbrukerrådet" (The Norwegian consumer council) won a case against apple so they had to change their Norwegian terms of use. The changes were many and the result differ greatly from the deal Americans and others have. We actually now have the right to remove the DRM to make our songs playable on other devices, and this software helps us do that, and many other things 100% legally.

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

It's not a "right" he's fighting for. You have no "right" to be entertained. If the RIAA had their way, fine. Then I wouldn't listen to their music or watch the MPAAs DVDs. I probably be a lot more productive with my life.

I do have a right to 'fair use' of copyrighted content per copyright law. Now if you want to debate what constitutes 'fair use' that's fine.

 

[psxndc]

Get your facts straight mister. In Norway the Norwegian "forbrukerrådet" (The Norwegian consumer council) won a case against apple so they had to change their Norwegian terms of use. The changes were many and the result differ greatly from the deal Americans and others have. We actually now have the right to remove the DRM to make our songs playable on other devices, and this software helps us do that, and many other things 100% legally.

That's great! Bully for Norway. If he is facilitating people in Norway exercising their fair use rights, good for everyone...in Norway. But that doesn't change the "facts" over here in the US, where people will use the software to violate US Agreements. Does he distinguish on his site which country you're in? If he doesn't, then he's - let's admit - knowingly promoting this.

 

[psxndc]

Because EULAs are completely unenforcable legally and immoral by anyone's reasonable definition.

Please see ProCD v. Zeidenberg

Also see Hill v. Gateway.

Done reading? Now let's continue the conversation. EULAs are enforceable, and should be. If you don't like them, either don't use the product or bring it up with your legislature.

If you don't use iTMS, good for you. I don't either. I was fine with them until I wanted to use a song I bought as a ringtone. I'm not going to pay an additional fee for it. So I didn't AND I didn't just go and use it anyway. I took it as an annoying lesson in how the iTMS works. So now I use Amazon's mp3 store for DRM-less tracks. You say god bless the people that want to strip off the DRM of their iTMS tracks, but why don't you? You apparently think it's ok to do it, so are you saying you personally don't want to support a system you don't agree with?? Wow. It kinda sounds like.... my point.

Honestly, does anyone here actually read these things? Who has the time?

I read them (once I read the Pro CD case), and believe me I have plenty of better things to do. Not reading them is just laziness. It takes probably 10 minutes tops to read most EULAs. Spend 10 minutes less using the software and actually understand what you're agreeing to. Are are you against being an informed consumer?

 

[whooleytoo]

Is removing the DRM from iTunes music even illegal? Didn't Steve Jobs even previously say you could burn a CD then rip it? If so, what's the difference between doing that, and using this software.

Personally, I'll use this software so that I can play the music I've bought in the device of my choosing (and I'll rip my DVDs and (in particular) my HD-DVDs too so that I can continue to watch the movies I've bought.)

Is it illegal to do so? I've no idea, I guess I'll find out. Is it immoral?

No. Period.*

(just for melodramatic effect. couldn't resist..)

 

[oban14]

PS: Just so you know, I don't like DRM either; and I hope it eventually goes away. But until someone comes up with a better way to allow fair use while providing an appropriate barrier to protect the work, it's a necessary evil.

1) DRM will always be circumvented.
2) Because DRM will always be circumvented, it only harms honest consumers.
3) Software/music pirates will always circumvent the DRM and get what they're after for free.

So how/why is it a necessary evil? The genie is out of the bottle. Artists will never have control over copyright the way they did in the past. People need to get used to this fact and find other ways to get paid.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Now if only there was a way of getting third party portable media players to link to iTunes on a Mac. I've spent the last 2 days trying to find a way to get a Creative device to sync with iTunes....nothing. I'm liking Creative's interface on their PMP...much more....I guess the phrase would be visually pleasing to the iPod Classic. The Touch is not even an option with its neutered 32GB of storage.

 

[SiliconAddict]

I've been reading this thread and yah know. Everyone has a point but no one is 100% right and no one is 100% wrong. The simple, and it is very simple, fact is that if the RIAA hadn't been clinging to old ways for so long P2P would have been a nonissue.
It took something like 7-10 years for them to grasp the concept of single track purchases, and even then they kept looking for greater then .99 price structures. It took another 2 years ontop of that to grasp the concept of non DRM which for them has always been the silver bullet for piracy, even though its contrary to everything any _informed_ consumer would ever want.

During that time consumers said F off and turned to bittorrent, Napster, et al P2P file sharing sites to rebel against the RIAA. Many of the people I know don't download because they want it free. They download because of the RIAA and the perception, right or wrong I'm not going to commont on, that they get the lions share of the profit while fracking over the artist.
They have successfully established a "personality" that they are scum, that they are greedy, that they will sue a dead grandmother, and will use false statistics to try and get legislation passed to do their bidding. In short much of this fiasco responsibility falls squarely in the lap of the RIAA.
Something that I think the MPAA is now starting to face in mass. Bittorrent is starting to really slap the MPAA in the face now that compression has gotten to the point where a quality movie can be downloaded for about 300-500MB. That, I believe, is why a site like www.hulu.com was created. But unless they act fast it won't be enough. They NEED to show the general public that they aren't [bleep]hats. Because that impression is forming fast with the price of theatre tickets continuing to climb. It will only get worse. But as for the RIAA. They are pretty much screwed. Perceptions like this stick like a plasma weld and every time they sue someone else it just re enforces it and people hate them just a little bit, or a lotta bit more.

 

[Wiggin]

1) DRM will always be circumvented.
2) Because DRM will always be circumvented, it only harms honest consumers.
3) Software/music pirates will always circumvent the DRM and get what they're after for free.

So how/why is it a necessary evil? The genie is out of the bottle. Artists will never have control over copyright the way they did in the past. People need to get used to this fact and find other ways to get paid.

I'll give you #1 and #3, but you only get one point for them because they are duplicates. There will always be a way to get around the barrier of DRM if you are determined enough.

But I'd like to see statistics for #2. Go back to CDs. What percentage of non-fair use copies of CD were made by "pirates" (ie, people mass producing copies to sell for profit) vs by people casually making copies and giving them to friends? I don't know, wouldn't even hazard a guess. But I suspect you don't know either. Therefore, #2 is pure speculation and theory.

We can even revisit my earlier analogy of making copies of books. I said the "barrier" that helped protect the work was that making the copy was difficult. But only the first copy. Once you've made a photocopy, it's easy enough to make additional copies. So the mass production pirates could still do it if they wanted. The fact that making only one copy was difficult would, to use your words, "only harms honest consumers." And yet, I still don't see everyone complaining that it's too hard to make a copy of a book! Why not? What is so special about music and the internet that we all of a sudden think we have rights and entitlements that we didn't have before, that we didn't seem to be all that concerned about before?

The other reason it's a necessary evil, for now, is because whether you like it or not, some copyright holders are insisting on having it. So without it, we wouldn't have the iTunes/iPod ecosystem we have today.

 

[oban14]

I'll give you #1 and #3, but you only get one point for them because they are duplicates. There will always be a way to get around the barrier of DRM if you are determined enough.

But I'd like to see statistics for #2. Go back to CDs. What percentage of non-fair use copies of CD were made by "pirates" (ie, people mass producing copies to sell for profit) vs by people casually making copies and giving them to friends? I don't know, wouldn't even hazard a guess. But I suspect you don't know either. Therefore, #2 is pure speculation and theory.

We can even revisit my earlier analogy of making copies of books. I said the "barrier" that helped protect the work was that making the copy was difficult. But only the first copy. Once you've made a photocopy, it's easy enough to make additional copies. So the mass production pirates could still do it if they wanted. The fact that making only one copy was difficult would, to use your words, "only harms honest consumers." And yet, I still don't see everyone complaining that it's too hard to make a copy of a book! Why not? What is so special about music and the internet that we all of a sudden think we have rights and entitlements that we didn't have before, that we didn't seem to be all that concerned about before?

The other reason it's a necessary evil, for now, is because whether you like it or not, some copyright holders are insisting on having it. So without it, we wouldn't have the iTunes/iPod ecosystem we have today.

First of all, 1, 2 and 3 are more of a chain of events/logic than three distinct points. But I digress.

Books are successful for a few reasons. You ever try to print out an entire book? It isn't cheap. Making copies? Same thing. Pirate an e-book? Who wants to spend 20 hours reading off a screen?

And for the record, I have every right to make copies of any book I own for my own personal use.

As for pirating books and copying CDs, it certainly happens. It's more popular in Asian countries but it happens at your local swap meet and anywhere else. Some of these products (particularly copies of Microsoft and Adobe software) look so authentic that you can barely tell they're copies. They'll literally use a whole factory for the fabrication process... sometimes the very same factory contracted to make the original product!

These are the true copyright infringers. As far as your comments about the iTMS eco system not existing without DRM, it doesn't matter. I don't think you or the RIAA is fully aware of how little say they have in the issue. They can provide DRM crap, and people will pirate. They can provide non-DRM songs, and people will pirate. They can provide absolutely nothing, and people will pirate.

The only way you will ever slow down copyright infringement is by giving it the death penalty. Good luck with that.

 

[ok13]

no point

you can just burn those to a cd, then rip them back

 

[NightStorm]

I said this in another thread, but I'll say it here again. I don't understand what is so revolutionary about this product. All it does is exploit the analog hole (oh and play it faster so it doesn't take as long). The only reason this is getting any press is because "DVD Jon" is involved; I'm so glad he decided to cash in on his "hacking" and "going against the man" persona.

 

[tehinternets]

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.

Hell, that's about what you pay for DRM-less audio files from allofmp3/mp3sparks, and they let you pick whatever codec or lossless format you want!