Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
for the first time in a while..I *hate* apple
- Thread starter asif786
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What If...
What if you recorded the music on to a minidisc or something (analog with mini jack) and pulled it back into a recording app and used it from that point on. Would the DRM still be attached?
What if you recorded the music on to a minidisc or something (analog with mini jack) and pulled it back into a recording app and used it from that point on. Would the DRM still be attached?
Wow, I didn't even know about this but it really makes me mad. ESPECIALLY since SJ often brags about this sort of functionality during keynotes with being able to buy a song to put on your slideshows and then send slideshows to people. I'm very disapointed in them. I can only hope that *if* Apple sells more songs than CDs do, that they'll have enough of a ruling fist that they'll be able to push the RIAA around into greater usability for consumers.
On a related note... i hate the RIAA.
On a related note... i hate the RIAA.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but yeah, it is.SteveC said:How can you hate *Apple* for following DRM laws?or where you saying you hated them until you found out why it REALLY didn't work? 'Cuz it's not Apple's fault here...
DRM "law" is really non-existant. DRM technology is designed to sort of enforce copyright law and, in this instance, it's functioning appropriately. Using a song in a video to send to someone else is, like it or not, unauthorized (IIRC).
You might get by with calling it fair use, but I don't think it would hold up for the same reason you can't copy the CD and send it to your brother.
If you don't like the DRM that Apple uses for iTunes, either strip it out (license violations) or buy the CD and treat in murky water on your own. Don't get pissed because Apple is holding you to your agreement.
I have to agree with SteveC Apple seems to have to fight the music industry seems to get them to agree with their proposed consumer DRM rights.SteveC said:How can you hate *Apple* for following DRM laws?
Many laminated that iTunes now has decreased the amount of people who can share your music in a day. This is no doubt intended to appease the music industry.
I'm sure, as many have commented that one day the music industry will understand that they could make more money by offering to sell the music with no DRMs and still survive, but bureaucracy is slothful.
Why Blame Apple?
The Music corporations are the ones putting limitations on the music. Apple was able to up the computer authorization from 3 to 5, but had to lower the CD burning to 7 from 10. Why would apple want to put limitations on what you could do with your music? They got the Music corps. to allow them unlimited iPods and you can use it in anything quicktime based, but they can't have everything.
The Music corporations are the ones putting limitations on the music. Apple was able to up the computer authorization from 3 to 5, but had to lower the CD burning to 7 from 10. Why would apple want to put limitations on what you could do with your music? They got the Music corps. to allow them unlimited iPods and you can use it in anything quicktime based, but they can't have everything.
Mav451 said:
Well, I've found Apple to be pretty good about it all. It makes sense to limit it to 5-- Music companies would have Apple's ass in a sling if they tried anything else. You just have to realize that you sometimes need to take the good with the bad. It is good to make a video slideshow and send it to people you love. Its bad that the music industry is being a PITA about a number of things.
And with .wma, do you mean that it is so easily cracked you can play it on any computer, or what?
jemeinc said:
OK, I'll purchase a song. Now if I transmit that song to 100 friends via P2P or CD, that's clearly illegal.
So I purchase a song. I attach it to a slideshow and send it to 100 friends.
How is that different?
Why are we even debating whether commercial music - for which the *right to copy* is owned by the copyright holder (not you for the 0.99 you paid) - should be able to be distributed to more than 5 people?
That's the deal you made when you paid your buck. 5 machines. Not unlimited use to unlimited people.
Pot, meet kettle.asif786 said:
See, now if you would have just said this was an annoyance... than yes, it is. Saying "I *hate* Apple" for this is going a bit far. You agreed to the DRM, just as Apple agreed to the DRM thanks to the RIAA. They clearly show that you can use these tools for personal use. As in, showing them to family. No one said anything about e-mailing them to everyone. Besides, there are ways around it. Yeah, it sucks, but there's not much you can do about it. It's a valid complaint, but it's there for a reason, and you really didn't have to be so dramatic. It's not the end of the world.
Except when you buy it from an online store, in which case... yes, there is DRM. As you said, .m4a has no DRM. M$'s .wma comes in DRM and non-DRM varieties. Unless you have a Mac, in which case you can't even play protected .wma. Not that most Mac users would care, but I for one would kinda like the choice. I have a PC, but if I can't play it on my Mac too, I ain't buyin' it.Mav451 said:
Mp3 is still my favorite either way. No DRM in it's standard form.
I hate to burst some people's bubbles out there but purchasing tracks from the iTMS does NOT mean you now OWN that music. It only means that you have been granted the right to USE it. That is part of the Terms Of Sale that you agreed to prior to purchasing said music. If you would rather own it, you should contact whatever parties currently own the rights and buy it from them. (Technically, I believe even CDs do not give you ownership of the music, just usage rights.)
You're correct. With CDs, you own the container (the CD), but the music (the bits) technically is protected by copyright and you are only licensed to use it fairly (fair use). Pretty much the same applies to DVDs, books (you own the book, but you can't reuse the words anywhere else), and just about any other intellectual property that's out there. Only in a few cases does a complete transfer of the property (i.e., the seller retains no rights regarding reuse/modification/redistribution) take place... usually, it's because they WANT their material to be disseminated (e.g., Grateful Dead bootlegs).dejo said:
CanadaRAM said:
Bravo, well said!
It still floors me to see that so many people feel they can do this kind of thing with music created by someone else, without the copyright holder's consent. It's silly. When a news organization wants to put together a montage piece and set it to music, they have to pay the musician a fee to use that music. We don't have to pay that fee to make our own personal slideshows, but then we don't have the right to share it without the musician's permission either. Sounds fair to me. Why is there this expectation that we should be able to attach someone else's creative hard work to our own, without asking them first? We paid for the right to have a copy of that work and listen to it however we want, but we didn't pay for the altogether different right to use it in a new composition and possibly distribute that.
I think people are used to being able to do whatever they want with music they've bought. That's natural. "I bought it, I own it." Ok, cool. You own that copy. You do not, however, own the original work, so you have no say over how it can be used to create new works of art. Thus you really shouldn't use it in your own new creation (music for a video or slideshow). But we all do it anyway (I'm guilty too, my wedding video - iMovie makes it too easy!). And of course you also don't own the right to distribute new copies of the music to other people. Most people wouldn't argue with that.
So, making a video or slideshow with someone else's music and then distributing that to friends/family is definitely illegal. I'm actually impressed that Fairplay extends that far and still works. Kudos to Apple for building a system that works well enough to satisfy the record companies but is flexible enough to stay out of the way of the consumer's legitimate uses. Unfortunately, no matter what you may think, sending commercial music with a slideshow to a bunch of friends is not a legitimate use.
I'm actually surprised the record companies didn't force Apple to do this with all music - iTMS protected AAC or just plain old MP3. They could have easily just disabled sharing of any kind of music, or maybe disabled sharing anything that didn't come out of GarageBand. That's essentially what the industry did with DAT tape. When that came out, it was the first relatively inexpensive way that someone might be able to make a perfect digital copy of music. The RIAA was very afraid, so every DAT tape is serialized. When you make a copy, the serial number gets incremented, and after a few times, you can't make any more copies. Doesn't matter if it's copyrighted music or your own original material.
At least with Apple's stuff, you have no restrictions on your own music, and anything you ripped from CD also holds no restrictions (though as I said, legally, you shouldn't be sharing it). I wouldn't be surprised if Apple had to fight the record companies for that much. Doesn't anyone appreciate that?
CanadaRAM said:
Well, if that's the case, SJ shouldn't be demo'ing slideshows at his keynotes..
Or, he should say 'iPhoto can do this, but make sure you dont, because that's not ethical. In future, only view your slideshows on your computer, dont send them'.
Perhaps saying I *hate* apple was a bit strong
but still, I was/am majorly pissed off with something like this. In fact, what annoys me more is that iPhoto DOES NOT mention this annoyance ANYWHERE. I can think of the major embarassment if I sent this video to 100 people and they all came back to me complaining...And whoever said 'authorize your relatives computers' - no, i dont want to give me apple password out to random family members. I shouldn't have to.
Punani said:
While the thought of many users attempting to sandwich their music player application between two sheets of polymer is an amusing one, I think the word you meant to use is 'lamented'.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lamented
Of course it's just as illegal to give away unlimites copies of a song even if it's attached to some images.
Maybe copyright holders would allow this kind of sharing if the music quality was reduced to 64kbps? We could try to ask Apple to ask RIAA to allow for such an option. If not there's always the burn to CD and rip back option.
Maybe copyright holders would allow this kind of sharing if the music quality was reduced to 64kbps? We could try to ask Apple to ask RIAA to allow for such an option. If not there's always the burn to CD and rip back option.
Not Apple's fault?
Presumably Apple's hands are tied on this one. In order to have the support of the music companies a few compromises have been made.
People like Apple and Sony will inevitably have to stand on the moral high ground, even if it annoys law-abiding users.
Likewise, a few key-presses on the remote of most brands DVDs will make them region-free, but a Sony device requires a bit more work; presumably they don't want to be seen to condone region-hacking.
Apple can't make it easy to share DRMed music. Of course, it would be nice to know exactly where one stands when buying the stuff, especially if the goalposts are on the move...
Presumably Apple's hands are tied on this one. In order to have the support of the music companies a few compromises have been made.
People like Apple and Sony will inevitably have to stand on the moral high ground, even if it annoys law-abiding users.
Likewise, a few key-presses on the remote of most brands DVDs will make them region-free, but a Sony device requires a bit more work; presumably they don't want to be seen to condone region-hacking.
Apple can't make it easy to share DRMed music. Of course, it would be nice to know exactly where one stands when buying the stuff, especially if the goalposts are on the move...
The fact is without DRM the music industry would not have signed up with apple and we would have no iTMS and this thread wouldn't exist. What you have said about not being able to share the videos you make only holds true when you send the files over to them. Burn it to DVD or CD and the problem goes away, at least in my experience. Apple don't want you sending raw data files anyway, that isn't the point of it. At no point do apple say you can do what you are wanting to do. They include iDVD and the options to burn for a reason.
As pointed out in my first post and by others hear, what you are wanting to do is strictly illegal. Make a slideshow for yourself and your household is ok or though technically if you had friends around to see it you would be broadcasting it and that is a no no be it with CD music or something from the iTMS. I don't feel apple is doing anything wrong here, they are having to work within the guidelines put down by somebody in this case the RIAA and the music industry who sadly hold all the cards.
OK. So I've found the perfect song to put on my wedding video but it's a copyrighted one. I'm going to send this video to the 50 people with the capability to view it.
So, is there a website where I can swiftly declare a home movie with this music, 50 possible viewers and pay the additional royalty fees and do the right thing? Not that I've seen advertised anywhere - so I go the stripped DRM or burn to CD route.
Lesson - if you're going to create restrictions on people's use of music, then provide them with a way to do the right thing or don't be surprised when they don't.
So, is there a website where I can swiftly declare a home movie with this music, 50 possible viewers and pay the additional royalty fees and do the right thing? Not that I've seen advertised anywhere - so I go the stripped DRM or burn to CD route.
Lesson - if you're going to create restrictions on people's use of music, then provide them with a way to do the right thing or don't be surprised when they don't.
Just a clear up on the amount of computers
I just wanted to add to the list of people who might want to see a slideshow:
Lets say I'm a typical family of four. I have a powermac, my wife a powerbook, and two ibooks for the two kids. Thats already 4 computers on my itunes screen name.
Now, I want to make a slideshow with a PURCHESED piece of music of my sons junior high school graduation. Maybe his grandparents want to see it. How about his aunts and uncles? Maybe his cousins? That is much more then 5.
Now after saying that, I don't feel the problem is with apple. The problem is the law, and it should allow more. Once the laws change, apple can offer more freedom.
Ofcourse if you have enough money (i def. dont) you can get a mac mini and only authorize that computer and stream the music to all the other computers. Except that apple is slowly starting to kill that too, with only 5 people a day being able to get music from that one computer. This affects music you burned from a cd as well, not just itunes bought songs!!!!!
I just wanted to add to the list of people who might want to see a slideshow:
Lets say I'm a typical family of four. I have a powermac, my wife a powerbook, and two ibooks for the two kids. Thats already 4 computers on my itunes screen name.
Now, I want to make a slideshow with a PURCHESED piece of music of my sons junior high school graduation. Maybe his grandparents want to see it. How about his aunts and uncles? Maybe his cousins? That is much more then 5.
Now after saying that, I don't feel the problem is with apple. The problem is the law, and it should allow more. Once the laws change, apple can offer more freedom.
Ofcourse if you have enough money (i def. dont) you can get a mac mini and only authorize that computer and stream the music to all the other computers. Except that apple is slowly starting to kill that too, with only 5 people a day being able to get music from that one computer. This affects music you burned from a cd as well, not just itunes bought songs!!!!!
Applespider said:
I think it's not that hard to do this. I know a youth club who did get the proper permissions for the music they used on an amateur movie project here in Norway. You could try to contact the organization in the UK that is the equivalent to the norwegian Tono (american RIAA?).