for the first time in a while..I *hate* apple

[ChrisBrightwell]

Whenever I use protected music, or music that I don't own, at the end of the movie I include a little bit of text that says "All music owned by their respective owners" or something like that. It goes by pretty fast like the normal movie credits.

That doesn't make it legal.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

[...] 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. [...]

You have to authorize anyone that streams DRMed AAC files.

 

[dotdotdot]

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 never "owned" anything in the first place.

You have as much right to the music as the people you buy it from. iTunes doesn't OWN the music, they resell it. Like BestBuy doesn't OWN like eMachines or Apple, they RESELL them.

However, that being said, you do "own" the music to the extent that its always yours and you can listen on up to 5 computers, then just burn to a CD and rip the songs... then you still don't OWN the songs but you have more rights to the music.

You never OWN anything these days...

 

[OutThere]

Purchasing music doesn't mean that you own it. The right to the music, and how they wish to distribute it and spread it is up to the artists. It is extremely difficult to legislate things regarding this because:

Where do you draw the line? The law can't say that you can only send it to friends and family - they can't say that you can only send it to people close to you. Where do they draw the line? 'It's just a couple of friends!', it's just a couple thousand people...where can you say that it is illegal vs. legal?

People have a problem thinking of something that they have paid money for as a license to use something. People still have yet to realize that even though you have paid for something, that doesn't make it yours to do whatever you want with.

I'd rather not get started on a rant about how sites like http://www.downhillbattle.org/ are accomplishing nothing - and how they seem to think that getting music directly from the artists is the best form of getting music - simply forgetting the thousands of people who are involved, and have to be involved in the process of creating and distributing music. Their process of downloading the music and sending money to the artist is the most non-sensical thing I have ever heard of in my life. It is analagous to saying that you will let your friend buy a book, scan it and send you the files, after which you send money to the author. Does anyone realize how much work is put into a book before it is published? How do the printers, designers, editors, illustrators and all others who worked on the book get paid then?

Taking music is not the answer. DRM has made great strides towards allowing the artists to still create great things, while generally allowing rather liberal use of the music. For student and non-profit films licenses can be obtained to use music rather easily.

Don't steal music.

 

[jaw04005]

Am I missing something? I just created a Movie with iMovie and used an iTunes purchased track and transferred it to my (non-authorized) PC. The video and audio played fine. Does this only happen with iPhoto?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Apple is really in a no win situation here.

SteveC,
As another poster mentioned, there are no such things as DRM laws. Applying DRM is a completely optional choice made by the person/company that owns the distribution rights.

psycho bob,
What you described is in no way, shape, or form broadcasting. Inviting hundreds of strangers into your house to view it for free might be considered public performance. Charging people to watch it, though, makes it a commercial venture and would definitely be against the law.


What's funny is most/nearly all event videos (weddings, parties, etc.,.) that use music don't license it 'cause it's too dang expensive. Do you have $10,000 to drop so U2's "Mysterious Ways" can be in your wedding video (note: I don't know how much it would cost to license U2's "Mysterious Ways" but $10k wouldn't surprise me, odds are I bet it's more)? But the odds of an event videographer getting busted for it are slim-to-none 'cause it's not work the time and money to hunt them down and bring them to court. Anyway...

asif786,
You might just have to do it the old fashioned way and send out hard copies to those you want to see it.


Lethal

 

[solvs]

Well, if that's the case, SJ shouldn't be demo'ing slideshows at his keynotes..

Why not? Take a notebook with you, show it on a slideshow. Have a desktop at home? Well, you can still show people when they come over. Even put it out to a TV with an adapter. Tape it to VHS if you want. Therein is the fallacy of your argument. No one is burning anything to disk and sending it to people. Nowhere does it say you can do this, and no one has claimed to. It actually does say somewhere in that legal-ese what you can and can't do, and I'm sorry that you still feel mislead, but that's why you have to read the fine print.

Besides, there are plenty of reasons to dislike Apple, this just ain't one of them.

 

[gekko513]

Apple is really in a no win situation here.

SteveC,
As another poster mentioned, there are no such things as DRM laws. Applying DRM is a completely optional choice made by the person/company that owns the distribution rights.

psycho bob,
What you described is in no way, shape, or form broadcasting. Inviting hundreds of strangers into your house to view it for free might be considered public performance. Charging people to watch it, though, makes it a commercial venture and would definitely be against the law.


What's funny is most/nearly all event videos (weddings, parties, etc.,.) that use music don't license it 'cause it's too dang expensive. Do you have $10,000 to drop so U2's "Mysterious Ways" can be in your wedding video (note: I don't know how much it would cost to license U2's "Mysterious Ways" but $10k wouldn't surprise me, odds are I bet it's more)? But the odds of an event videographer getting busted for it are slim-to-none 'cause it's not work the time and money to hunt them down and bring them to court. Anyway...

asif786,
You might just have to do it the old fashioned way and send out hard copies to those you want to see it.


Lethal

I don't know how much the youth club I was talking about had to pay to license all the music they used, but it was definitely not $10k, more like $50-$100, and that was for a one hour movie with a lot of music.

Edit:
Here's the price list for private AV-production in Norway, category "Entertainment and Other Productions".

You have to submit an application with a detailed list of the music you plan to use and how many seconds. They will check if you can use the music without any special permissions and how much it will cost. These are the standard prices:

Synchronization fee: $0.44 per second of music in the production
Copy fee: $0.90 per copy

The total fee is the sync. fee plus the copy fee. The fee is distrubuted among the copyright holders according to how many seconds their music is used.

I'm sure there is a similar system in other countries.